CONFESSORS 
OF  RELIGIOUS 


A  DISSERTATION 

Submitted  to  the  Faculty  of  Canon  Law  of  the 
Catholic  University  of  America*  in  partial 
fulfillment  of  the  requirements 
for  the  Degree  of 

DOCTOR  OF  CANON  LAW 

By 

ROBERT  EMMET  McCORMICK,  J.  C.  L. 

Priest  of  the 

Archdiocese  of  New  York 


THE  CATHOLIC  UNIVERSITY  OF  AMERICA 
WASHINGTON,  D.  C. 


1926 


Nihil  Ohstat: 

Thomas  J.  Shahan,  S.  T.  D., 

Censor  Deputatus. 


Washingtonii,  D.  C.,  die  7  Iunii,  1926. 


Imprimatur : 

+ Michael  J.  Curley, 

Archiepiscopus  Baltimor ensis. 


Baltimorae,  die  7  Iunii,  1926. 


Copyright,  1926 


Robert  Emmet  McCormick 

cn  r^' 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 


PAGE 

Introduction  . v 

PART  I. 

The  Confessor  of  Male  Religious 

Chapter  I.  Pre-Code  Development  of  the  Law .  1 

Article  I.  In  Monastic  Rules .  2 

1.  African  Monasticism .  2 

The  Rule  of  St.  Anthony .  2 

The  Rule  of  St.  Pachomius .  3 

2.  Oriental  Monasticism .  3 

The  Rule  of  St.  Basil .  3 

3.  Occidental  Monasticism .  6 

The  Rule,  of  St.  Benedict  of  Nursia .  6 

Benedictine  Reforms .  8 

Orders  Following  the  Benedictine  Rule .  10 

The  Rule  of  St.  Columban .  11 

The  Rule  of  St.  Chrodegang .  12 

The  Franciscan  Rule .  12 

The  Augustinian  Rule . 13 

The  Dominican  Rule .  14 

Rule  of  the  Augustinian  Regulars .  14 

Article  II.  In  Local  Legislation . . .  15 

Article  III.  Papal  Enactments .  16 

1.  Before  Clement  VIII .  16 

2.  From  Clement  VIII  to  the  Decree  “Quemad- 

modum” .  19 

Chapter  II.  Confessors  of  Clerical  Institutes .  31 

Article  I.  Appointed  Confessors .  31 

Canon  518,  $  1. 

Canon  875,  §  1. 

Article  II.  The  Superior  as  Confessor .  39 

Canon  518,  $  2,  $  3. 

Chapter  III.  Confessors  of  Lay  Institutes .  45 

Canon  528,  $  2,  $  3. 

Chapter  IV.  Confessors  of  Novices . 49 

Article  I.  The  Ordinary  Confessor .  49 

Canon  566,  $  2,  1°,  $  2,  2°,  §  2,  3°, 

$2,  4°... 49-50-52-53 

Canon  891 .  50 

Chapter  V.  .  55 

Canon  519 .  55 

Appendix — Confessors  of  Seminarians .  68 


iv 


Contents 


PART  II. 

Confessors  of  Female  Religious 

Chapter  VII.  The  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Law .  75 

Article  I.  In  Rules  of  Religious  Orders .  75 

St.  Pachomius .  75 

St.  Basil .  76 

St.  Augustine .  76 

St.  Caesarius  of  Arles .  77 

Cistercians  .  77 

Order  of  Fontevrault .  77 

Gilbertines  .  78 

The  Poor  Clares .  78 

Constitution  of  St.  Bridget .  78 

Papal  Privileges .  79 

Article  II.  Pre-Tridentine  Local  Counciliar  Legislation .  80 

Article  III.  From  the  Council  of  Trent  to  the  Constitution 

‘  ‘  Pastoralis  Curae  ’  ’ .  82 

Article  IV.  From  the  Constitution  ‘ 1  Pastoralis  Curae  ’ ’  to  the 

Decree  “Quamadmodum” .  87 

Article  V.  From  the  Decree  1 1  Quamadmodum  ’  ’  to  the  Code 

of  Canon  Law .  94 

Introduction  to  Canonical  Treatment .  98 

Chapter  VIII.  Special  Jurisdiction  Required  for  the  Confessions 

of  Religious  Women .  100 

Canon  876,  $  1 .  100 

Chapter  IX.  Choice  and  Delegation  of  Confessors .  104 

Canon  876,  $2 .  104 

Canon  525 .  104 

Chapter  X.  The  Ordinary  Community  Confessor .  109 

Canon  520,  $  1 .  109 

Article  II.  The  Unity  of  the  Confessor .  115 

Canon  514,  $  1,  $  2 .  120 

Article  III.  Term  of  Office  of  the  Ordinary  Confessor .  123 

..  Canon  526 .  125 

Canon  524,  $2 .  133 

Chapter  XI.  The  Extraordinary  Community  Confessor .  136 

Canon  521,  $  1 . 137 

Canon  524,  $2 .  144 

Chapter  XII.  Qualities  of  the  Ordinary  and  Extraordinary 

Confessor  .  146 

Canon  524,  $  1 .  147 

Chapter  XIII  Rules  to  be  Observed  by  the  Ordinary  and  Extra¬ 
ordinary  Confessor .  154 

Canon  524,  $3 .  154 

Chapter  XIV.  Removal  of  Confessors .  160 

Canon  527 .  160 

Canon  880,  $  3 .  162 


Contents 


v 


Chapter  XV.  Supplementary  Confessors .  163 

Canon  521,  $2 .  164 

Canon  521,  §  3, .  169 

Canon  2414 .  172 

Chapter  XVI.  Special  Ordinary  Confessor  of  an  Individual  Re¬ 
ligious  .  174 

Canon  520,  §  2 . T...  174 

Chapter  XVII.  The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience .  179 

Canon  522 .  180 

Article  I.  The  Subjects  of  the  Law .  180 

Article  II.  Necessary  Condition  for  the  Use  of  this  Canon .  181 

Chapter  XVIII.  The  Confessor  of  the  Sick .  220 

Canon  523 .  220 

Canon  882 .  231 

Chapter  XIX.  Entrance  of  the  Cloister  of  Nuns  by  the  Confessor . .  233 

Canon  600 .  234 

APPENDICES 

I.  Frequency  of  Confession .  241 

II.  Cardinal  Confessors .  245 

III.  Jubilee  Confessors .  246 

IV.  Power  of  Confessor  in  Regard  to  Reception  of  Communion .  251 

Bibliography  .  255 

Thesis  .  259 


INTRODUCTION. 


THE  CONFESSOR  OF  RELIGIOUS. 


Definition. 

The  confessor  of  religious  is  the  duly  appointed  priest  hav¬ 
ing  special  approbation  or  jurisdiction  from  the  proper  superior 
lu  hear  the  confessions  of  religious.  The  word  confessor 
has  gone  through  an  evolution  in  meaning  from  its  use  in  the 
early  Church  until  it  now  has  an  entirely  different  force  than 
that  of  its  primary  significance.  Confessors  at  the  beginning 
of  the  Church  were  not  only  martyrs  who  gave  their  lives  for 
Christ  but  also  those  who  openly  confessed  Our  Lord  before 
tyrants  and  the  enemies  of  the  faith  and  who  suffered  punish¬ 
ment  and  torment  but  died  a  natural  death.1  This  word 
acquired  another  meaning  by  being  applied  to  chanters,  who 
were  in  the  lower  grades  of  the  clericate,2  because  in  chanting 
the  Scriptures  they  frequently  pronounced  the  word  confiteri. 
Gradually  the  term  confessor  came  to  mean  conf essarius 
or  the  penitent  confessing  his  sins  in  sacramental  confession  to 
a  priest  who  was  called  the  confessor .3  Peculiarly  the  name 
confessor  was  sometimes  given  to  a  monk  who  for  the  expiation 
of  crimes  ‘‘entered  monastic  confession’ ’  or  penance,  forsak¬ 
ing  the  life  of  the  world.4 

The  confessor  of  religious  was  sometimes  designated  by  the 


1  l)u  Cange,  Glossarium  ad  Scriptores  Mediae  et  Infimae  Latinitatis,  t.  II, 

col.  950  ft;  Facciolati,  Totius  Latinitatis  Lexioon  I,  442;  Andrews, 
Latin-English  Lexicon,  p.  340. 

2  Du  Cange,  op.  cit.,  p.  952. 

3  Du  Cange,  op.  cit.,  p.  952,  quotes  in  support  of  this  the  following, 

“  Qui  peccata  sua  confit etur  sacerdoti” — Chronicon.  Mellicense,  p. 
328,  col.  11;  In  Reg.  Reformat.  Monast.  Mellicense,  “  Conf  essarius 
autem,  nude,  pure,  humiliter  ac  breviter  confiteatur  culpas  suas 
,  Confessor  habens  intentionem  latissimam  absolvendi  ....  subjungat ; 
Dominus  Noster  Jesus  ChHstus,  etc.” 

4  Du  Cange,  loc.  cit. 


[vi] 


Introduction 


Vll 

term  sacerdos  confessionis  as  is  found  in  the  rule  of  the  Or¬ 
der  of  Sempringham5  and  in  the  book  of  the  Order  of  St.  Victor 
of  Paris.6  This  lack  of  uniformity  in  terminology  is  found  even 
in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries,  when  the  Council  of 
Trent7  applied  to  confessors  of  religious  the  term  confessor , 
while  Clement  VIII  in  15938  used  the  word  confessarius. 
The  former  term  was  reverted  to  by  Clement  X,  wTho  ap¬ 
plied  it  to  both  the  ordinary  and  extraordinary  confessor  of 
women  religious.9  This  term  confessor  wras  also  accepted  by  suc¬ 
ceeding  Pontiffs  Innocent  XIII,10  and  Benedict  XIII* 11  until 
Benedict  XIV  in  his  constitution  “Ad  Militantes ”12  once  more 
used  confessarius  in  application  to  the  ordinary  and  extraor¬ 
dinary  confessors  of  nuns.  In  his  constitution  “Pastoralis  Cu- 
rae”  of  August  5,  1748, 13  the  words  confessor  and  confessa¬ 
rius  were  applied  without  distinction  and  even  simultaneously 
in  the  same  paragraph  by  this  Pontiff.  But  from  that  time  on 
he  and  his  successors  brought  about  uniformity  in  terminology 
by  always  using  the  word  confessarius 14  which  is  found  in 
the  decree  “  Quemadmodum”15  and  is  now  the  accepted  term  in 
the  Code  of  Canon  Law. 


Division. 

Since  the  law  in  regard  to  the  confessors  of  male  religious 
developed  in  different  phases  and  different  periods  than  those  of 
the  confessors  of  female  religious  the  general  division  of  this 
work  is  based  upon  the  fact  of  this  divergence.  In  each  section 


5  Regula  Ordinis  Sempringensis,  c.  5;  cf.  Holsten,  Codex  Begularum, 

II,  471. 

6  MS,  c.  31 ;  cf.  Du  Cange,  op.  cit.,  952. 

7  Sess.  XXY,  c.  10,  De  Eegularibus  et  Monialibus  ;  Ehses,  Concilium 

Tridentinum,  t.  9,  p.  1082. 

8  Decree,  Cum  Sanctissimus,  May  26,  1593,  §3;  FJC  n.  177. 

0  Const.  Superna,  June  21,  1670,  §4;  FJC  n.  246. 

10  Const.  Apostolici  ministerii,  May  23,  1723,  $21;  FJC  n.  280. 

11  Const.  In  Supremo,  Sept.  23,  1724,  §17;  FJC  n.  283. 

12  March  30,  1742,  §  20;  FJC  n.  236. 

13  FJC  n.  388. 

14  Benedict  XIV,  Const.  Quamvis  Justo,  Apr.  30,  1749,  §§13,  16;  FJC 

n.  398;  Const.  Apostolici  ministerii,  Dec.  9,  1749;  FJC  n.  405. 

15  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Dec.  17,  1890;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1907),  n.  1745. 


Introduction 


•  •  • 
vm 

the  history  of  the  law  from  its  origin  and  development  under 
monastic  rule  is  offered  as  the  preparation  for  subsequent  ad¬ 
vances  in  legislation  which  preceded  the  Code.  The  canonical 
treatment  naturally  falls  into  two  parts,  “The  Confessor  of 
Male  Religious ”  and  “The  Confessor  of  Fenude  Religious ” 
and  the  minor  divisions  within  each  section  are  made  for  the 
purpose  of  a  clear  presentation  in  a  logical  order.  The  main 
division  of  the  second  part  in  regard  to  female  religious  is 
made  from  the  viewpoint  of  approbation  and  the  attempt  will 
be  made  to  present  the  rules  of  law  for  confessors  requiring 
special  approbation  to  be  followed  by  those  concerning  con¬ 
fessors  who  are  exempt  from  the  law  of  special  approval.  On 
disputed  questions  the  clear  statement  of  conflicting  opinions 
with  their  supporting  arguments  will  be  offered  and  a  choice 
made  of  that  which  seems  the  better,  but  for  the  practical  solu¬ 
tion  of  the  individual  case  which  may  arise  solid  canonical 
principles  of  action  will  be  advanced. 

Purpose. 

The  law  of  the  confessor  of  religious  has  been  the  subject 
of  much  dispute  both  before  and  after  the  Code  and  Chelodi16 
states  that  probably  more  ink  has  been  spilt  on  the  solutions 
of  the  difficulties  that  canon  522  offers  than  on  any  other  canon 
of  the  Code.  The  importance  of  a  clear  and  concise  statement 
of  the  difficulties  with  the  equally  clear  solution  of  these  both 
theoretically  and  practically  is  the  goal  towards  which  this 
present  dissertation  is  directed  in  the  hope  that  the  consciences 
of  confessors,  religious,  superiors  and  local  ordinaries,  with 
whom  the  law  is  concerned,  may  find  peace  in  the  definite 
knowledge  of  their  rights  and  obligations. 


16  Jus  de  Personis,  n.  258. 


CHAPTER  I. 


PRE-CODE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  LAW. 

Praenotanda. 

In  the  historical  treatment  of  this  question  only  those  rules 
and  laws  will  be  traced,  which  have  reference  to  the  confessor 
to  whom  the  religious  confessed  in  the  sacrament  of  penance  to 
receive  absolution  from  their  sins.  It  is  necessary  therefore  to 
preface  this  chapter  with  the  distinction  between  the  sacramen¬ 
tal  confession  made  by  the  religious  and  the  confession  of  faults 
or  the  capitulum  culparum  which  is  required  by  some  reli¬ 
gious  rules.  The  latter  is  not  sacramental  and  consists  in  the 
public  admission  in  the  religious  chapter  of  external  violations 
of  the  rules  and  constitutions,  or  of  disturbances  caused  through 
negligence  in  the  public  recitation  of  the  office,  or  of  any  excesses 
committed  in  the  refectory,  etc.1  The  procedure  generally  fol¬ 
lowed  is  that  the  monk,  when  rebuked  by  his  prior,  exclaims 
“mea  culpa”  and  then  prostrates  himself  at  the  feet  of  the 
latter  seeking  pardon.  At  the  command  of  the  prior  he  arises 
and,  when  requested,  humbly  gives  his  reason.2  Not  only  did 
the  right  of  accusing  others  of  fault  belong  to  the  monks  of  the 


1  Capitula  Monachorum:  “Si  quis  negligenter  sonitum  fecerit,  aut  aliud 

quid  excesserit  in  Refectorio,  mox  a  Priore  veniam  petat ;  ’  ’B.  Caroli 
Magni  Opp.  pars  1  sectio  1;  n.  41,  MPL  97,  386;  cf.  Woulter, 
Praecipuci  Ordinis  Monastici  Elementa ,  p.  380. 

2  Capitula  Monachorum,  n.  13,  Cum  a  quocunque  Priore  suo  increpatus 

quis  monachorum  fucrit  “  mca  culpa”  primo  dicat,  dehxnc  prosterncns 
se  illius  pedibus  cum  cappa,  si  habuerit,  veniam  petat.  Et  tunc 
jubente  Priore,  surgat  et  unde  interrogatus  fuerit,  rationem  humiliter 
redot.;”  MPL  XCVII,  382;  cf.  Udalrici  Consuetudines  Cluniacenses, 
lib.  II,  cap.  17,  18;  MPL  CXLIX,  708;  cf.  Constitutiones  Ordinis 
Praedicatorum}  Djgt,  II,  n.  818  ff. 


it 


[1] 


2 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


community  in  chapter,3  but  sometimes  even  the  obligation  of 
doing  so  was  imposed  in  virtue  of  the  vow  of  obedience.  This 
distinction  between  sacramental  confession  and  the  capitulum 
culparum  must  be  kept  in  mind  in  considering  the  prescrip¬ 
tions  of  monastic  rules  and  constitutions  in  regard  to  confessions 
and  confessors. 

Article  I.  In  Monastic  Rules. 

1.  African  Monasticism. 

The  Rule  of  St.  Anthony. 

As  Mackean  says,  asceticism  and  mystical  tendencies  were 
very  prevalent  in  the  Egyptian  Church.  The  desire  of  inward 
purity  in  this  world  as  a  preparation  for  the  next,  together  with 
the  longing  to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  Christ  supplied  the 
tendency  towards  living  in  the  desert,  a  country  of  equable 
climate.  This  formed  the  fuel  of  the  monastic  movement,  which 
St.  Anthony’s  example  and  influence  ignited.4  To  him,  then, 
is  to  be  attributed  the  foundation  of  Christian  Monasticism  and 
more  especially  of  the  hermit  or  anchorite  life  in  the  Desert  of 
Thebes,  about  the  year  of  270  A.  D.5  Although  he  had  many 
followers  he  did  not  draw  up  a  definite  rule  of  life  for  them. 
The  rule  attributed  to  him  had  its  origin  most  likely  in  the 
second  half  of  the  Fourth  century  and  was  composed  probably 
by  some  of  his  disciples.6  In  the  twenty-fifth  clause  this  rule 
forbids  the  hermits  to  confess  their  bad  thoughts  to  all  men 
and  only  to  those  who  could  save  their  souls.7 

This,  of  course,  offers  no  conclusive  proof  as  to  the  exist- 


3  Goffricli  Abbatis  Yindocinensis,  Opuscula  XIV,  “ Ordinamus  itaque  et 

ordinando  sub  nomine  sanctae  obedientiae  praccipimus,  ut  alter  al- 
terius  culpam  sic  in  capitulo  notified  quatenus  eum  minari  non  prae- 
sumat,  nee  increpet  .  .  .  Liceat  unicuique  qui  accusatur  aut 
humiliter  culpam  agnoscere,  vel  si  culpabilis  minime  fuerit,  se  non 
audadcr,  sed  patienter  cxcusare  etc.;”  MPL  CLVII,  col.  228  ff. 

4  Mackean,  op.  cit.,  p.  70;  Heimbucher,  Die  Orden  und  Kongregationen, 

I,  93  ff. 

5  Pourrat  op.  cit.,  p.  80. 

6  Heimbucher,  op.  cit.,  1,  96. 

7  St.  Benedict  of  Aniane,  Codex  Eegularum;  MPL,  CIII,  424, 


Pre-Code  Development  of  the  Law 


3 


ence  of  a  special  confessor  for  the  hermits  but  it  seems  to  refer 
to  priests  endowed  with  the  power  of  the  keys,  for  they  alone 
could  save  souls  stained  with  mortal  sin. 

The  Ride  of  St.  Pachomius. 

With  the  elimination  of  the  more  crude  elements  of  the 
hermit  life,  a  new  form  arose  attributed  to  St.  Pachomius  (345, 
A.  D.)  the  disciple  of  St.  Anthony.  He  was,  the  author  of  the 
cenobitical  or  community  life  for  the  early  Egyptian  monks.  His 
rule  translated  by  St.  Jerome  is  not  authentic,  yet  it  may  well 
contain  some  of  his  principles  for  it  was  written  during  the 
century  in  which  he  himself  lived.8  The  superiors  of  the  dif¬ 
ferent  houses  under  this  rule,  corrected  all  faults  committed 
therein,  but  if  it  was  a  question  of  a  sin  not  embraced  by  the 
rule  the  monks  referred  it  to  the  Fathers  of  the  monastery.9 
It  is  not  certain  that  these  Fathers  were  priests.  Although 
Pachomius  was  of  the  opinion  that  his  monks  should  not  receive 
sacerdotal  consecration,  he  nevertheless  received  priests  as  his 
disciples,  on  the  condition  that  they  should  not  aspire  to  any 
distinction  in  the  community.10  It  was  perhaps  to  these  priests 
that  the  confession  of  sins,  other  than  infractions  of  the  rule, 
was  to  be  made. 


2.  Oriental  Monasticism. 

The  Ride  of  St.  Basil. 

The  next  step  in  monastic  development  leads  to  the  East 
and  Cappadocia,  where  the  rule  of  St.  Basil  the  Great,  Bishop 
of  Caesarea  is  found  in  force.  This  great;  writer  of  the  church 
made  an  intimate  study  of  monastic  life  and,  desiring  to  do 
away  with  the  eremetical  system,  incorporated  his  ideal  of  mon¬ 
astic  government  in  the  most  important  of  his  works,  the  Regu- 
lae  Brevius  Tractatae  and  the  Regidae  Fusius  Tractatae.  These 
rules  written  about  356  A.  D.  presuppose,  as  do  all  his  monastic 

8  St.  Benedict  of  Aniane,  op.  cit.,  MPL,  CIII,  416. 

9  Ladeuze,  Le  Cenobitisme  Pcilchoviicn,  p.  393. 

io  Ladeuze,  op.  cit.,  p.  279. 


4 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


writings,  that  the  monastic  community  is  already  in!  existence.11 
Following  the  catechetical  method  in  his  rule,  in  response  to  the 
two  hundred  and  eighty-eighth  question  of  the  Shorter  Rules, 
as  to  whom  the  monks  should  confess  their  sins,  whether  to  all 
or  only  certain  persons,  the  words  are  found,  ((Peccata  iis  con- 
fiteri  necesse  est,  quibus  mysteriorum  Dei  concredita  dispen- 
satio  est.”12  Rauschen  is  inclined  to  the  opinion  that  these 
dispensers  of  the  mysteries  of  God,  here  mentioned  were  not 
priests  and  that  it  is  doubtful  whether  these  cloister  confessions 
or  at  least  some  of  them  involved  sacramental  confession.13  He 
leaves  the  matter  rest  there  without  giving  any  reason  for  his 
opinion,  weakening  it  with  the  words,  “at  least  some  of  them,” 
thereby  admitting  the  converse,  that  some  of  these  confessions 
were  sacramental.  If  they  were  sacramental  these  confessions 
would  demand  the  existence  of  the  priest  confessor.  Clarke 
defends  the  same  view  from  another  angle  acknowledging  the 
presence  of  priests  in  the  monasteries,  who  celebrated  the  Sacra¬ 
ment  of  the  Eucharist,  but  claiming  that  a  careful  reading  of 
the  rules  and  a  glance  at  later  Greek  monachism  leads  to  the 
conclusion  that  the  duty  of  hearing  such  confessions  was  not 
assigned  to  the  monk  priests  as  such  and  that  St.  Basil  ordered 
his  monks  to  confess  to  the  senior  brethren  or  at  least  to  some 
of  them.14  Neither  of  these  arguments  is  supported  by  any 
substantial  proof  and  in  view  of  weighty  reasons  to  the  con¬ 
trary,  the  negative  view  seems  entirely  untenable. 

Thus  Dom  Besse  states  that  this  passage  is  noteworthy  as 
being  the  most  explicit  evidence  in  favor  of  sacramental  con¬ 
fession  preserved  for  us  in  the  monuments  of  primitive  monas¬ 
tic  tradition.15  It  is  Pourrat’s  contention  that  these  words  of 
St.  Basil  recommend  the  practice  of  confession  in  the  monas¬ 
tery  to  the  brethren  who  were  priests,  and  that  this  private 

11  Morison,  St.  Basil  and  Eis  Buie ,  p.  17. 

12  Begulae  Brevius  Tractatae ;  MPG,  XXXI,  1077,  1078;  MPL,  XXXII, 

728. 

13  Rauschen,  Eucharist  and  Penance ,  p.  239. 

14  Clarke,  St.  Basil  the  Great ,  p.  97  (ed.  1913). 

15  Besse,  Les  Moines  d’ Orient  anterieurs  au  Concile  de  Chalcedoine  (an. 

451  A.  D.),  p.  209,  note  1. 


Pre-Code  Development  of  the  Law  5 

administration  of  the  Sacrament  of  Penance,  apart  from  out¬ 
ward  solemnity,  was  not  long  in  becoming  general  in  the  mon¬ 
asteries  of  the  East.16  This  view  also  finds  favor  with  Morison, 
who  states  that,  “there  can  be  no  reasonable  doubt  that  St. 
Basil  expected  such  confessions  to  be  made  to  priests  for  the 
reference  to  the  dispensation  of  the  mysteries  of  God”  and  the 
reference  to  the  Sacrament  of  Baptism  (Reg.  Brev.  288)  would 
seem  quite  conclusive.  He  argues  for  this  from  the  fact  that  in 
St.  Basil's  day,  if  confession  was  to  be  made  to  an  individual, 
it  should  have  been  made  to  a  bishop  or  priest.17  That  the 
custom  of  the  Church  in  the  East  was  to  confess  to  priests 
seems  evident  from  the  fact  that  after  the  Decian  Persecution 
(249-251),  priest  penitentiaries  were  appointed  in  different 
places,18  whose  existence  is  all  the  more  forcibly  proven  by  the 
fact  of  their  suppression  at  Constantinople,  by  Nectarius,  in  the 
year  391. 19  Secret  confession  to  priests  was  in  truth  the  recog¬ 
nized  and  all  but  universal  practice  of  the  Church,  the  “Apos¬ 
tolic  rule”  as  St.  Leo  termed  it  (A.  D.  459). 20  The  common 
practice,  as  Morison  states,  favored  sacerdotal  absolution  and 
the  monks  would  be  most  unwilling  to  incur  a  reputation  for 
irregularity  in  their  administration  of  the  Sacrament  of  Pen¬ 
ance.  That  the  clergy  therefore  who  were  to  hear  these  con¬ 
fessions  should  be  chosen  with  extreme  care  is  what  should  be 
naturally  expected.21  To  these  authorities  can  be  added  the 
name  of  Abbe  Marin  who  not  only  proves  the  existence  of 
the  confessor  of  the  monks  under  the  rule  of  St.  Basil  but  also 
that  this  office  was  held  by  the  superior,  one  of  whose  graver 

16  Pourrat,  op.  cit.,  p.  95. 

17  Morison,  op.  cit.,  p.  74. 

18  Watkins,  A  History  of  Penance,  I,  486. 

19  Watkins,  op.  cit.,  315,  316,  349;  Sozomenus,  Historia  Ecclesiatioa,  MPG,. 

LXVII,  1547;  Rauschen,  op.  cit.,  p.  196. 

20  Leo  I,  March  6,  459  (Letter  to  the  Bishop  of  Compania)  Magna 

indignatione,  BBT  I,  n.  19,  p.  80;  Denzinger,  Enchridion  Sym- 
bolorum,  n.  145  (134). 

“  Apostolica  regula — reatus  conscientia  sufflcit  solis  sacerdotibus 
indicare  confessione  secreta;”  cf.  O’Donnell,  Penance  in  the  Early 
Church,  p.  97. 

21  Morison,  op.  cit.,  p.  64. 


6 


Confessors  of  Male ,  Religious 


duties  was  to  hear  the  weekly  confessions  of  his  monks.22  This 
confession  was  not  merely  for  spiritual  direction  but  had  a 
sacramental  character  and  was  confession  properly  so  called, 
participating  in  the  Sacrament  of  Penance.  Abbots  not  vested 
with  the  priesthood  sometimes  usurped  this  right  but  their  ac¬ 
tion  was  always  condemned  by  the  councils.23 

As  a  rule,  however,  the  superiors  were  priests.  The  regis¬ 
ter  of  the  Synod  of  Constantinople  of  536  A.  D.  shows  that  all 
superiors  of  monasteries  there  present  were  priests.  This  is 
also  in  conformity  with  the  Greek  Euchologium,  which  pre¬ 
supposes  the  superior  to  be  both  priest  and  monk.24  The  cogency 
of  the  arguments  advanced  in  favor  of  this  opinion  compared 
to  the  weakness  of  those  offered  by  the  contrary  view  force  the 
conclusion  that  the  confessor  of  the  oriental  monks  following 
the  Basilean  rule  was  a  priest  and  at  the  same  time  their 
superior.  Since  the  rule  of  St.  Basil  prevailed  over  all  the 
others  in  the  East  and  is  retained  today  by  all  oriental  monks,25 
Eastern  monasticism  need  not  be  considered  any  further. 

3.  Occidental  Monasticism. 

Rule  of  St.  Benedict  of  Nursia. 

The  rule  of  St.  Benedict  of  Nursia  was  written  most  likely 
in  530  A.  D.  at  Monte  Cassino.  It  has  been  the  foundation  for 
all  subsequent  monastic  legislation  throughout  the  centuries  un¬ 
til  the  present.  The  rule  of  St.  Benedict  was  not  the  new 
creation  of  his  mind  for  he  was  aided  in  its  composition  by  the 
rules  of  St.  Pacliomius,  St.  Basil  and  the  211th  letter  of  St. 


22  The  number  of  monks  often  exceeded  1,000,  necessitating  weekly  con¬ 

fession  and  no  monk  was  allowed  to  extend  this  time  beyond  15  days; 
Marin,  Les  Moines  de  Constantinople,  etc.,  p.  95. 

23  Neither  can  the  practice  which  later  arose  of  people  confessing  to 

monks  not  in  priestly  orders  and  due  to  an  exaggerated  reverence 
prove  anything  against  the  practices  of  the  monks  of  St.  Basil’s 
day  within  the  monasteries;  cf.  Morison,  St.  Basil  and  His  Buie,  p.  76. 

24  Marin,  op.  cit.,  p.  96. 

25  Montalambert,  The  Monies  of  the  West,  I,  328,  footnote;  Smith, 

Christian  Monasticism  from  the  Fourth  to  the  Ninth  Centuries,  p.  59. 


Pre^Cocle  Development  of  the  Law  7 

Augustine  of  Hippo  of  Africa,20  but  in  the  matter  of  dircet 
quotation  he  is  most  indebted  to  the  Institutes  and  Conferences 
of  Cassian.27  His  rule  however  surpassed  them  all  as  a  prac¬ 
tical  code  of  legislation.28  Reference  is  made  in  this  rule  to 
confession  of  sins  hidden  in  the  soul.  This  confession  was  to  be 
made  to  the  Abbot  or  the  Spiritual  Seniors,  who  knew  how  to 
cure  their  own  wounds  and  not  to  reveal  those  of  others.29 

Does  this  refer  to  Sacramental  confession  ?  De  Latte  in 
his  modern  commentary  supports  the  negative  view,  interpreting 
the  words  “spiritual  seniors”  as  meaning  those  who  had  an 
important  part  in  the  government  of  souls.30  He  argues  that 
this  rule  is  parallel  in  purpose  to  the  fifty-first  instrument  of 
good  works,31  or  the  fifth  degree  of  humility32  in  which  the 
monks  are  advised  to  confess  their  thoughts  to  the  Abbot.  These 
latter  two  parts  of  the  rule  have  been  the  basis  of  dispute  among 
commentators  and  the  weight  of  authority  makes  the  view,  that 
they  do  not  imply  sacramental  confession,  the  more  probable. 
It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  these  quotations  refer  to 
revelation  of  bad  thoughts  only.  This  is  very  indefinite,  and 
might  imply  imperfections  whereas  the  first  quotation  speaks 


26  St.  Augustine  wrote  no  rule  for  men,  but  the  one  which  bears  his 

name  is  based  on  the  211th  letter  to  his  nuns  (a.  d.  423). 

27  John  Cassian,  an  ascetical  writer  of  Southern  Gaul  (about  the  year 

of  429),  refers  to  the  confession  of  thoughts  to  the  senior  monk. 
The  latter,  however,  was  not  the  sacramental  confessor,  for  this 
was  a  sort  of  1 1  culpa  confession  ’  ’  for  the  sake  of  mortification, 
(c-f.  Gazaeus,  Cassiani  Opera  Omnia,  p.  53;  MPL  XLIX,  161:  Wat¬ 
kins,  op.  cit.,  1,400.)  The  same  seems  to  be  the  case  in  the  rule  of 
the  monastery  of  Kilros  built  in  448.  This  rule  is  the  most  ancient 
monument  of  occidental  monachism  in  existence,  (cf.  Holst en,  Codex 
Begularum,  II,  p.  65;  I,  index,  p.  XXXI.) 

28  Butler,  Benedictine  Monachism,  p.  164  ft;  Pourrat  op.  cit.,  p.  243; 

Heimbucher,  op.  cit.,  p.  211  ff. 

29  Begula  Benedicti,  ch.  46;  “Si  animae  vero  peccati  causa  latens  fuerit; 

tantum  abbati  aut  spiritualibus  senioribus  patefaciant  qui  sciant 
curare  sua  et  aliena  vulnera  non  detegere  et  publicare.’  ’  MPL,  LXVI, 
col.  649. 

30  De  Latte,  Commentary  on  the  Buie  of  St.  Benedict,  p.  300,  ff. 

31  Buie  of  St.  Benedict,  ch.  IV;  cf.  St.  Benedict  of  Aniane,  Concordia 

Begularum,  MPL  CIII,  col.  802;  WoeUflin,  Begula  Benedicti,  p.  14, 
n.  30;  Buie  of  St.  Benedict,  (Eng.  Version,  Birmingham  1844),  p.  14. 

32  MPL  LXVI,  col.  219. 


8 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


explicitly  of  sins  hidden  in  the  soul.  Therefore  it  does  not  seem 
that  a  strict  parallel  exists  between  these  passages  implying 
identity  in  meaning. 

The  better  view  is  that  the  passage  in  question  refers  to 
sacramental  confession  to  priests.33  The  purpose  of  St.  Ben¬ 
edict  in  this  rule  was  that  confession  should  be  made  not  only 
to  the  Abbot  but  also  to  the  Spiritual  Father  (the  name  used 
by  the  ancient  Greeks  and  more  recent  Latins  to  designate  the 
confessor)  because  at  that  time  not  all  Abbots  were  priests.  St. 
Benedict  required  of  these  Spiritual  Fathers  the  greatest  secrecy 
which  properly  belongs  to  sacramental  confession.  Martene 
quotes  in  support  of  this  view  such  commentators  as  St.  Hilde- 
gard,  Bernard  of  Cassia,  Nicholas  of  Fractura,  Richard  of 
St.  Angelo,  Peter  Boherius,  John  Craesbeek  and  Anthony 
Perez.34 

Evidently  then  the  forty-sixth  chapter  cannot  be  inter¬ 
preted  in  the  same  way  as  the  fourth  and  seventh  chapters, 
which  refer  to  a  sort  of  “culpa  confession.”  And  so  the  con¬ 
clusion  is  evident  that  the  forty-sixth  chapter  in  its  prescrip¬ 
tion  to  the  monks  to  confess  the  sins  hidden  in  their  souls  to 
their  Abbot  or  Spiritual  Seniors  prescribes  sacramental  con¬ 
fession.  Since  this  confession  was  to  be  made  not  only  to  the 
Abbot  but  to  other  priests,  confessors  of  the  same  order,  to 
whom  they  could  have  recourse  especially  in  the  case  where 
the  Abbot  had  not  priestly  orders,  the  existence  of  confessors 
supplementary  to  the  Abbot  seems  evident. 

Benedictine  Reforms. 

Benedictine  Monachism,  which  did  away  with  the  very 
austere  asceticism  of  the  African  and  Oriental  forms,  soon  at- 

33  St.  Benedict  received  priests  who  desired  to  live  in  the  monastery,  but 

would  not  permit  them  to  exercise  the  functions  of  their  priestly 
office  without  permission  of  the  Abbot,  who  could  request  ordination 
for  his  monks  for  the  service  of  their  own  church.  ( Regula  Magistri, 
MPL  CIII,  1313,  1315,  1323.) 

34  The  latter  three  held  against  sacramental  confession  in  the  quotation* 

of  the  fourth  and  seventh  chapters,  while  they  interpret  the  quotation 
of  the  forty-sixth  chapter  in  its  favor,  cf.  Martene,  Begula  Bene¬ 
dicts  Commentates,  MPL  LXVI,  Col.  696. 


Pre-Code  Development  of  the  Law 


9 


traded  thousands  to  its  monasteries  which  had  sprung  up  in 
the  different  countries  of  Europe.  But  at  the  same  time  that 
the  Benedictines  strengthened  their  power  and  extended  their 
organization  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  the  first  symptoms 
of  dissolution  and  decadence  manifested  themselves.  Earthly 
potentates  built  monasteries  in  their  territories  to  gain  the 
good  will  of  Heaven  and  those  who  could  not  take  the  habit 
sought  to  receive  part  of  the  heavenly  favor  attached  to  the 
habit  by  enriching  the  men  that  wore  it  or  their  institution. 
With  riches  then  corruption  entered  the  Benedictine  Order  and 
becoming  habituated  in  luxury  and  the  pleasures  that  it  brings, 
laxity  in  observance  of  the  rule  was  engendered.35  The  nec¬ 
essity  of  reform  was  recognized  by  St.  Benedict,  Abbot  of 
Aniane,  who  died  in  821  A.  D.  He  obliged  all  the  monasteries 
of  the  Frankish  Empire  to  return  to  the  primitive  rule  of  St. 
Benedict  of  Nursia.  He  left  two  monastic  writings,  the  Codex 
Regularum  Monasticorum  et  Canonicorum 36  and  a  Concordia 
Regularum ,  i.  e.,  a  concordance  of  these  rules  with  that  of  St. 
Benedict.  This  saintly  Reformer  of  the  religious  life  made  no 
specific  statement  in  regard  to  confessors  other  than  that  con¬ 
tained  in  the  original  rule37  but  he  gave  the  impetus  which 
culminated  in  the  more  definite  reforms  of  the  next  centuries. 

Thus  the  monastery  of  Cluny,  France,  saw  the  inaugura¬ 
tion  of  such  a  reform  in  910  and  in  the  constitutions  of  the 
order  drawn  up  about  1000  A.  D.  the  Abbot  is  still  the  con¬ 
fessor  of  his  own  monks38  with  the  exception  that  at  death  the 
prior  could  be  chosen  for  that  purpose.39  In  England  under 
the  reform  of  St.  Dunstan  of  Glastonbury  about  944  A.  D.,  the 
Abbot  was  the  regular  confessor  together  with  those  priests  of 
his  monastery  whom  he  delegated  for  that  purpose.40  An  abuse 
arose  during  the  latter  part  of  the  twelfth  century  among  the 

35  Marchand,  Moines  et  Nonnes,  p.  90  ff. 

30  MPL  CIII,  423-702. 

87  MPL  CIII,  713-1380. 

88  Udalrici  Consuetu  dines  Cluniacenses,  lib.  II,  c.  26;  MPL  CXLIX,  712. 

39  ibid.,  lib.  Ill,  c.  28;  MPL  CXLIX,  770. 

40  Sancti  Dunstani  Begularis  Concordia;  MPL  CXXXVII,  482;  cf. 

Martene,  Begula  Benedicti  Commentata,  MPL  LXVI,  696. 


10 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


monks  of  the  Abbey  of  St.  Lauiner,  France,  of  confessing  to 
the  bishops  and  their  delegated  priests  instead  of  their  abbot, 
a  practice  which  Peter  of  Blois,  of  the  same  abbey,  condemns 
as  an  unjust  violation  of  the  prescriptions  of  their  Fathers.41 
These  Abbots  must  have  been  priests,  for  he  states  clearly  else¬ 
where  that  confession  must  be  made  to  priests.42  About  the 
same  time  at  Paris  in  the  Abbey  of  St.  Victor  the  Abbot  is 
found  appointing  a  monk  as  confessor,  to  whom  his  brethren 
could  confess.43 

Orders  Following  the  Benedictine  Ride. 

The  rule  of  the  Cistercian  Order,  founded  by  St.  Robert 
of  Molesme  in  1090  on  the  Benedictine  rule,  mentions  only  the 
Abbot  as  confessor.44  St.  Robert  de  Arbrissel  in  the  rule  of  the 
Order  of  Fontevrault,  about  1117  A.  D.,  in  which  the  Abbess 
was  superioress  of  both  nuns  and  monks,45  prescribed,  confession 
to  the  Prior  but  to  other  priests  if  fear  prevented  the  revelation 
of  their  sins  to  their  superior.46  The  Carthusian  Order1  found¬ 
ed  by  St.  Bruno  in  1084  received  its  first  written  rule  from  the 
Abbot  Guigo  about  1127.  Although  it  was  not  a  branch  of  the 
Benedictine  Order  yet  the  rule  of  St.  Benedict  was  one  of  the 
main  elements  upon  which  it  was  based.47  Here  again  the  Prior 
or  his  delegate  was  the  weekly  confessor  of  the  monks.48  It  is 
evident  then  that  both  under  the  original  rule  of  St.  Benedict, 
and  under  the  constitutions  of  the  different  reformed  Bendic- 
tine  abbeys  and  also  those  of  other  orders  which  took  the  rule 
of  St.  Benedict  as  their  whole  or  partial  norm  of  life,  the  Abbot 


41  Petri  Blesensis,  Liber  de  poenitentia ;  MPL  CCVII,  1095. 

42  Petri  Blesensis,  De  Confessione  Liber ,  MPL  CCVII,  1077. 

43  Lea,  History  of  Confession  and  Indulgences,  I,  199. 

44  Liber  Institutorum,  Capituli  Gcneralis  Ordinis  Cisterciencis,  dist.  6, 

c.  14;  cf.  Martene,  op.  oit.,  in  MPL  LXVI,  679. 

43  Heimbucher,  Die  Orden  und  Kongregationen ;  I,  477  ff;  Weber,  Cath. 
Encycl.  VI,  130  ff. 

46  Praecepta  Eecte  Vivendi,  c.  XXII;  MPL  CLXII,  1084. 

47  Webster,  Cath .  Encycl.  Ill,  388. 

48  Consuetudines  Guigonis  (Stat.,  c.  7);  Martene,  Begula  Benedicti  Com- 

mentata;  MPL  LXVI,  696. 


Pre-Code  Development  of  the  Law 


11 


held  the  office  of  regular  confessor  of  his  monks  and  as  a  rule 
delegated  other  priests  for  that  purpose. 

The  Rule  of  St.  Columbian. 

In  Ireland  even  before  the  time  of  Columban  the  practice 
of  private  confession  and  reconciliation  of  the  monasteries  had 
found  its  way  into  lay  circles.49  The  year  of  530  brings  to  light 
the  Penitential  of  Finian ,  in  which  as  a  general  rule  the  Abbot 
was  a  priest ;  and  he  or  any  other  priest  on  his  behalf  heard 
confessions  and  assigned  penances.50  The  same  is  found  in  the 
Preface  on  Penance  of  Gildas  (about  560  A.  D.)  while  in  the 
Penitential  of  Columban  the  office  of  the  priest  is  clearly  in 
evidence.51  Moreover  the  Abbot  of  the  sixth  century  in  Ireland 
exercised  jurisdiction  without  scruple.52 

During  this  century,  the  same  office  which  St.  Basil  and 
the  Greek  Monks  had  performed  in  the  East  as  the  apostles 
of  private  confession  was  sponsored  in  Gaul,  by  St.  Columban, 
the  greatest  figure  of  Irish  monastic  legislation.  (543-615.) 53 
Once  more  the  Abbot  is  seen  as  the  confessor  of  his  own  monas¬ 
tic  subjects  as  is  evident  from  the  advice  of  St.  Columban  to 
his  monks  to  make  confession  to  their  Abbot  secretly  before 
receiving  Communion  if  they  had  committed  sins  of  impurity.54 
This  evidently  refers  to  the  confession  of  mortal  sins,  for  these 
alone  would  prevent  the  reception  of  Holy  Communion.  This 
implies  also  that  the  Abbot  was  in  priestly  orders  for  only  those 
with  the  sacerdotal  character  could  remit  sins  of  their  very 
nature  grave. 

When  the  Regula  Coenobalis  is  consulted,  this  will  become 

49  Rauschen,  Eucharist  and  Penance,  p.  239. 

50  Poenitentiale  Yinniani ;  Haddan  and  Stubbs,  Councils  and  Ecclesiastical 

Documents  Eelating  to  Great  Britain  and  Ireland,  I,  114;  Watkins, 

op.  cit.,  II,  609  ff. 

51  Ch.  IV;  Haddan  and  Stubbs,  op.  cit.,  I,  114;  Watkins,  op.  cit.,  p.  604, 

612,  617. 

52  Watkins,  op.  cit.,  I,  279  ff. 

53  Pourrat,  Christian  Spirituality,  p.  256. 

54  Columbani  Eegula  Monachorum,  c.  LXXX;  cf.  Holsten,  op.  cit.,  I,  279 

ff;  MPL  LXXX,  209-216. 


12 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


more  evident,55  since  it  prescribes  confessions  to  priests  only.56 
This  confession  was  to  be  made  daily  by  youths.57 

The  rule  of  St.  Columban  then  confirms  as  necessary  tun 
unity  of  confessor  required  by  the  other  rules  already  consid¬ 
ered. 


The  Rule  of  St.  Chrodegang. 

Another  advance  in  confessional  discipline  is  marked  in 
the  rule  of  St.  Chrodegang,  Bishop  of  Metz  (742-766),  who 
obliged  his  diocesan  clergy  to  live  in  community  and  gave  them 
the  name  of  Canons  Regular.  He  not  only  exhorts  them  to  con¬ 
fess  to  the  priests  of  God  but  prescribes  weekly  confession  to 
the  bishop  or  prior.58  Confession  to  their  own  bishop  was  de¬ 
manded  of  the  clergy  twice  during  the  year,  i.  e.,  once  during 
Lent  and  again  between  the  middle  of  August  and  the  first  day 
of  November.  If  confession  was  necessary  during  these  periods 
and  permission  was  granted  by  their  bishop  or  if  outside  of 
these  times  necessity  existed  and  they  desired  to  confess,  they 
could  make  their  confession  to  another  bishop  or  some  other 
priest  whom  their  bishop  had  delegated.59  Thus  there  can  be 
seen  in  episcopal  legislation  forf  the  secular  clergy  the  tendency 
toward  unity  of  confessors.  The  practice  of  the  monastery  was 
beginning  to  receive  favor  outside  of  its  walls. 

The  Franciscan  Rule. 

The  thirteenth  century  was  of  quite  some  importance  in  the 
development  of  confessional  discipline.  During  this  century  the 
Mendicant  Order  of  Friars  first  claims  our  attention.  St.  Fran- 

55  This  rule  was  not  written  primarily  for  monks  strictly  so-called,  but 
for  all  the  inmates  of  the  monastery;  cf.  Watkins,  op.  cit.,  pp.  614, 
618. 

50  Ch.  X;  MPL  LXXX,  col.  222. 

57  Metlake,  American  Eoclesiastical  Review ,  vol.  XLIX,  p.  543. 

58  Regula  Canonicorum  Chrodegangi,  ch.  32;  Harduin,  Acta  Conciliorum, 

IV,  1187;  MPL,  89,  col.  1072. 

59  Regula  Canonicorum  Chrodegangi  ( editio  altera),  ch.  14;  MPL. 

LXXXIX,  col.  1104;  cf.  Lea,  op.  cit.,  I,  187. 


Pr e^Code  Development  of  the  Law 


13 


cis  of  Assissi  in  1207  gathered  about  himself  a  few  disciples, 
the  nucleus  of  a  great  order  which  ramified  into  the  Friars 
Minor  or  Franciscans  and  the  Conventual  Friars  Minor  in 
1517  and  the  Capuchins  in  1528.  In  his  first  rule  approved 
verbally  by  Pope  Innocent  III  in  1209  and  afterwards  in  1215 
by  the  Fourth  Lateran  Council  there  is  found  no  mention  of 
confession  to  a  superior  and  the  only  requirement  is  that  of 
confession  to  the  priests  of  the  order,  or,  if  this  be  impossible, 
to  other  discreet  Catholic  priests.60 

The  most  important  change,  however,  that  the  rule  of  St. 
Francis  introduced  was  the  reservation,  for  the  first  time,  of 
sins  within  the  order.  That  is  to  say,  the  reserved  sin  could 
not  b<y  absolved  by  the  confessor,  but  the  penitent  had  to  make 
application  to  a  higher  tribunal,  i.  e.,  the  superior.  If  the 
superior  was  a  priest,  he  could  absolve  and  enjoin  penances.  But 
St.  Francis,  who  felt  unworthy  to  approach  closer  to  the  service 
of  God  than  the  diaconate,  made  provision  for  superiors  who 
might  not  be  priests.  In  the  latter  case,  the  superior  was  to 
impose  the  penance  through  the  priest  of  the  order  who  heard 
the  confession.61  This  rule  and  practice  received  the  papal 
approval  of  Pope  Honorius  III  in  his  constitution,  Solet  an - 
nuere  of  Nov.  29,  1223. 


The  Augustinian  Rule. 

The  Rule  of  St.  Chrodegang  together  with  the  Statutes  of 
the  Council  of  Aix-la-Chapelle  (816)  had  formed  the  norms  for 
the  community  life  of  canons.  During  the  succeeding  centuries 

60  First  Rule  of  St.  Francis  of  Assissi ,  ch.  XX  f  cf.  Works  of  St.  Francis 
by  a  Religious  of  the  Order ,  p.  44;  Second  Eule,  cf.  Monier,  A 
History  of  St.  Francis,  p.  334. 

oi  Eegula  Bullata  St.  Francisci,  ch.  YII — “Si  qui  fratrum,  instigante 
inimico,  mortalitcr  peccaverint,  pro  illis  peccatis,  de  quibus 
ordinatum  fuerit  inter  fratres,  ut  recurratur  ad  ministros  provinciates, 
teneantur  praedicti  fratres  ad  eos  recurrere  quarn  citius  sine  mora. 
Ipsi  vero  ministri  si  presbyteri  sunt  own  misericordia  injungant  illis 
poenitentiam.  Si  vero  presbyteri  non  sunt,  injungi  faciant  per  alios 
pedire .”  Honorius  III,  Const.  Solet  annuere,  Nov.  29,  1223;  BRT 
III,  n.  67,  p.  396. 


14 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


these  were  found  unsatisfactory  and  the  so-called  Rule  of  St. 
Augustine  was  compiled.02  The  present  orders  that  trace  their 
rule  of  life  to  that  of  St.  Augustine  are  the  Praemonstraten- 
sians,  whose  rule  does  not  refer  to  the  sacramental  confessor,  the 
Augustinians  and  the  Order  of  Preachers  or  Dominicans.63 

Rule  of  the  Augustinian  Regulars. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  thirteenth  century,  William  of 
Paris,  (1105-1202),  of  noble  French  birth,  who  became  a  secular 
canon  at  St.  Genevieve  du  Mont  and  after  Suger’s  reform  a 
canon  regular  and  sub  prior  of  that  monastery,  received  later 
the  dignity  of  Abbot  of  the  Augustinian  Regular  Canons  at 
Eskill,  Denmark.  He  states  that  confession  is  both  necessary 
and  useful  especially  for  religious.  Therefore,  he  prescribed 
that  Abbots  or  Priors  or  other  superiors  in  their  absence  de¬ 
mand,  at  least  once  a  month,  of  the  confessors  appointed  to 
hear  the  confessions  of  the  monks,  the  names  of  those  monks 
confessing  to  them.64 


The  Dominican  Rule. 

One  of  the  foremost  religious  orders  to  adopt  this  revised 
Augustinian  rule  was  the  Order  of  Preachers,  or  Dominicans.65 
There  is  nothing  in  this  rule  directly  bearing  on  confessors  but 
the  Acts  of  the  General  Chapter  of  Paris,  1236,  commanded 
that  suitable  confessors  be  appointed  in  all  their  houses.66 
Priors  could  reserve  to  themselves  some  determined  cases  of 
mortal  sin.67  Here,  also,  the  superior  is  no  longer  the  only  con¬ 
fessor  of  the  religious  subject  to  him. 

62  Epistola  211  formed  the  basis.  MPL  33,  col.  962  ff. ;  Schaaf,  The 

Cloister,  p.  25.  Pourrat,  Christian  Spirituality ,  p.  165. 

«3  Montalambert,  Monies  of  the  West ,  I,  328;  Crusenius,  Monasticon , 
Augustinianum ,  p.  93  If. 

64  Additiones  Gulielmi  Parisiensis  ad  Constitutiones  Cardinalis  Gallanis ; 

Harduin,  VI  b,  1978. 

65  Schaaf,  The  Cloister,  p.  25. 

66  Acta  Capitulorum  Generalium  Ordinis  Praedicatorum,  Paris  1236;  cf. 

Constitutiones  Ordinis  Praedicatorum,  p.  9. 

67  ibid.  Prologue,  n.  11,  p.  15. 


Pre-Code  Development  of  the  Law 


15 


Article  II. 

In  Local  Legislation. 

The  trend  of  the  eighth  century  was  not  only  towards  pri¬ 
vate  confession  to  priests,  but  towards  confession  by  each  person 
to  his  own  proper  priest.  Thus  St.  Egbert ,  Bishop  of  York, 
England,  from  732-736,  commanded  not  only  all  clerics  in  mon¬ 
asteries  but  even  lay  people  to  go  to  their  own  proper  priests  at 
Christmas  time  for  confession.  This  he  claimed  had  been  the 
custom  since  the  time  of  Pope  Yitalian  570.68  It  was  most 
likely  this  movement  towards  the  unity  of  confessor  that  has 
been  noticed  also  in  the  different  religious  rules  that  caused 
the  Great  Synod  of  Rome,  held  on  November  15,  826  by  Pope 
Eugenius  II,  to  demand  that  the  Abbots  of  all  monasteries 
should  become  priests.  This  was  done  primarily  that  he  might 
hear  the  confessions  of  his  subjects  and  thus  keep  them  from 
sin.69 

The  prescription  of  the  unity  of  confessor  had  already  been 
made  for  the  secular  clergy,  when  its  violation  caused  the 
Provincial  Council  of  Paris,  June  6,  829  attended  by  the 
bishops  of  Rheims,  Sens,  Tours  and  Rouen  to  decree  that  the 
already  established  practice  of  clerics  or  priests  confessing  to 
monastic  priests  and  declining  the  ministry  of  their  own  bishops 
and  priests  canons  was  wrong.  Monks  were  only  to  hear  the 
confessions  of  members  of  their  own  order  living  in  the  same 
monastery.70 

In  England  there  was  demanded  of  the  diocesan  clergy  by 
the  Council  of  London  in  the  year  of  1200,  at  least  semi-annual 
confession,  i.  e.,  once  in  Advent  and  again  in  Lent,  to  priests 
appointed  for  that  purpose  in  the  individual  deaneries.71  And 
so  gradually  the  monastic  practice  and  rule  of  confessing  to  defi¬ 
es  Egbcrti  Dialogus,  Interrogatio  XVI;  Mansi,  XII,  482;  Haddan  and 

Stubbs,  op.  cit.,  Ill,  413;  MPL  LXXXIX,  442. 

69  Synodus  Bomana  an.  826,  ch.  XXVI;  Mansi  XIV,  1007;  Hefele,  Con- 

ciliengeschicte,  IV,  p.  49. 

70  Concilium  Parisicnse  VI;  cli.  XLVI;  Mansi  XIV,  565;  Harduin,  IV, 

1323;  Hefele,  op.  cit.,  IV,  65. 

71  Concilium  Londoniense,  ch.  VI;  Mansi,  XXII,  715. 


16 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


nite  and  appointed  priests  was  prescribed  for  the  secular  clergy. 
On  the  other  hand  the  Synod  of  Salzburg,  1274,  prohibited  reli¬ 
gious  from  confessing  outside  of  their  order72  and  monks  and 
canons  were  refused  by  the  Synod  of  Lambert  in  the  year  of 
1330  permission  to  confess  to  one  another.73 

Article  III. 

Papal  Enactments. 

1.  Before  Clement  VIII. 

Privileges  Granted  to  Religious. 

The  monastic  practice  had  so  influenced  the  times  that 
during  the  Middle  Ages  the  unity  of  confessor  was  established 
for  the  whole  world.  As  a  result  Urban  II  (1088-1099)  de¬ 
creed  that  it  was  not  lawful  for  a  priest  to  receive  a  penitent 
committed  to  the  charge  of  another  without  the  permission  of 
the  latter  unless  the  penitent  was  in  ignorance  of  the  one  to 
whom  he  first  confessed.74  The  Fourth  Lateran  Council  went 
further  by  making  annual  confession  to  their  own  proper  priest, 
a  matter  of  obligation  upon  all  the  faithful,  who  had  attained 
the  use  of  reason.75  This  strictness  of  discipline  was  mitigated 
for  the  faithful  by  the  privilege  given  to  the  Mendicant  Friars 
and  the  Dominicans  to  hear  the  confessions  of  all  the  faithful 
who  came  to  them.76  But  even  before  these  privileges  were 


72  Hefele,  op.  cit.,  VI,  p.  170. 

73  Hefele,  ibid.  p.  632. 

74  c.  3,  D,  VI,  de  poenit;  cf.  Vermeerseh,  Per.,  V,  p.  (1) ;  Choupin, 

Becents  Decrcts  du  Saint  Siege,  p.  30  ;  and  L’Etat  Beligieux,  p.  200. 

75  c.  10,  X,  de  poenitentiis  et  remissionibus,  V,  38 ;  Mansi  XXII,  1007 ; 

Denzinger,  Enchiridion  Symbolorum,  n.  437 ;  Wernz,  Jus  Dccretalium, 
III,  n.  738;  Vermeerseh,  op.  cit.,  p.  (2);  Choupin,  Nature  etc.  VEtat 
Beligieux,  p.  201;  cf.  Azpilcueta,  Enchiridion  sive  Manuale  Con - 
fessariorurn  et  Poenitentium,  cap.,  XXI,  p.  558. 

70  Boniface  VIII  (1294-1303),  c.  2,  de  sepulturis,  III,  7,  in  Clem ;  Van 
Espen,  J us  Ecclesiasticum  TJniversuin,  Pars  II,  tit.  VI,  ch.  5, 
n.  10  (ed.  1732)  p.  95 — Quotes  the  text  of  the  privilege  given  by 
Gregory  IX  to  English  Bishops,  in  1227 ;  cf.  II  Monitore  Ecc ., 
(March,  1925)  series  IV,  vol.  VII,  p.  82. 


Pre-Code  Development  of  the  Law  -  17 

given  for  the  use  of  the  faithful,  Gregory  IX  (1227-1234)  ex¬ 
empted  from  the  law  of  confessing  to  their  own  proper  priest 
both  bishops  and  religious  superiors  including  minor  exempt 
prelates,  granting  to  them  the  right  to  choose,  without  per¬ 
mission  of  their  superiors,  a  discreet  confessor.77  This  was  the 
first  relaxation,  with  papal  sanction,  of  the  strict  confessional 
discipline  for  religious.  For  the  other  regular  male  religious 
the  rigor  of  the  previous  requirements  was  maintained  as  the 
general  rule  at  all  times.78  The  prescription,  that  the  superiors 
should  hear  the  confessions  of  their  subjects  was  contained  even 
in  some  rules  having  papal  approval.79  Despite  the  fact,  that 
these  prelates  had  themselves  received  so  great  a  concession  of 
freedom  in  confessional  matters,  they  were  unwilling  to  mitigate 
in  the  least  the  very  strict  practice  of  making  their  subjects 
confess  to  them  even  if  unwilling.  This  abuse  was  so  pro¬ 
nounced  that  Gregory  IX  on  August  21,  1231  issued  a  decree 
to  all  the  prelates  of  the  world  commanding  that  this  practice 
be  stopped.80  Benedict  XI  (1336-1346),  to  settle  disputes  which 
had  arisen,  explained  the  decree  of  Boniface  VIII  to  the  effect 
that  those  religious  who  by  their  constitutions  had  to  confess 
to  their  superiors  could  not  be  absolved  in  virtue  of  the  facul¬ 
ties  of  the  Mendicant  Orders,81  unless  their  superiors  had  given 
them  permission  to  confess  to  such  confessors.  Those  confess¬ 
ions  made  without  this  permission  were  invalid.82 

.Some  few  privileges  were  granted  to  individual  orders  of 
choosing  on  two  occasions,  i.  e.,  once  during  life  and  at  the 
time  of  death,  a  confessor,  who  thereby  received  faculties  to 
absolve  from  censures.  As  a  rule  these  confessors  were  of  the 
same  order  and  chosen  only  with  permission  of  the  superior. 

77  c.  16,  X,  de  poenitentiis,  V,  38. 

78  Synod  of  Salzburg  1274;  cf.  Hefele,  op.  cit.,  VI,  170;  Synod  of 

Lambert,  ibid.,  p.  632. 

79  Declaration  of  the  Buie,  of  the  Brothers  of  the  Order  of  SS.  Trinity 

to  Bedeem  Captives,  by  Clement  IV,  Const.  In  Ordine,  Dec.  7, 
1267;  BRT  III,  n.  26,  p.  791,  ch.  7. 

80  c.  16,  de  excessibus  praelatorum,  V,  31;  cf.  Scherer,  Handbuch  des 

Kir chenr echts,  II,  p.  767. 

81  Const.  Inter  Cunctas ,  c.  1,  de  privilegiis,  V,  7,  in  Extravog.  com.; 

Scherer,  ibid. 

P2  Boudinhon,  Qanoniste  Contemporain ,  vol.  36,  p.  699,  701. 


18 


Confessors  of  Male  Religions 


Such  were  the  concessions  given  by  Eugene  IV  to  the  Brothers 
of  the  Blessed  Virgin  of  Mt.  Carmel,  February  16,  143283  and 
to  the  Hermits  of  St.  Peter  of  Pisa,  February  22,  1437  ;84  by 
Sixtus  IV  to  the  Dominicans  and  the  Friars  Minor,  July  26, 
1479; 85  by  Julius  II,  April  2,  1512  to  Regular  Canons  of  the 
Congregation  of  San  Salvador,  of  the  Order  of  St.  Augustine  ;86 
and  by  Leo  X  to  the  Camaldolese  monks  of  St.  Michael  de 
Murano,  July  4,  1513.87  The  restriction  of  confessing  to  priests 
of  the  same  order  was  removed  in  some  other  privileges,  as  for 
instance  in  that  granted  to  the  Brothers  of  St.  Francis  de  Paula 
by  Sixtus  IV,  on  May  27,  1474. 88  They  had  the  privilege  of 
choosing  any  confessor  whether  regular  or  secular,  whose  facul¬ 
ties  of  absolution  thereby  extended  to  all  cases  of  excommuni¬ 
cation,  interdict  and  suspension,  even  if  reserved  to  the  arch¬ 
bishop  by  law  or  by  himself.  Such  confessors  could  absolve  as 
often  as  necessary. 

The  concession  of  making  confession  to  any  secular  or  reg¬ 
ular  priest  was  made  bjy  many  pontiffs  to  various  societies  en¬ 
gaged  in  works  of  charity.89  Sixtus  IV  gave  to  Dominican 
Prelates,  August  2,  1480  the  right  to  go  to  any  confessor  when 
on  a  journey  and  extended  this  privilege  to  their  subjects  on 
that  condition  that  they  have  the  permission  of  their  superiors 
to  use  it.90  All  these  privileges  were  exceptions  to  the  general 
law  of  the  unity  of  confessor  and  did  in  no  way  mitigate  the 
general  discipline.  In  fact,  the  reverse  is  very  much  in  evidence, 


83  Const,  j Romani  Pontificis,  BRT  V,  n.  Ill,  p.  5. 

84  Const.  Provenit,  BRT  op.  cit.,  n.  15,  p.  30. 

85  Const.  Sacri  Praedicatorum,  BRT  loc.  cit.,  n.  25,  p.  280,  283;  Roderici, 

Besolutiones  Quaestionum  Begularium,  Res.  XXXII,  p.  257. 

86  Const.  Inter  caeteros;  BRT  V,  n.  36,  p.  522,  §  30. 

87  Const.  Etsi  a  Siimmo ;  BRT,  V,  n.  3,  p.  553,  §  47. 

88  Const.  Sedes  apostolica;  BRT  V,  p.  214. 

89  By  Innocent  VIII,  to  the  Confraternity  under  the  Invocation  of  St. 

John  Baptist,  Beheaded;  cf.  Const.  Inter  desiderabilia,  Aug.  23,  1490; 
BRT,  op.  cit.;  By  Leo  X,  to  those  taking  care  of  the  poor  and  sick 
of  the  Hospital  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  in  Rome;  cf.  Const.  Salvatoris 
Nostri;  July  19,  1515,  BRT,  op.  cit.,  V,  n.  16,  p.  643,  $  14;  By  Paul 
III  to  the  Archconfraternity  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary  of  the 
Visitation,  for  the  care  of  orphans;  Const.  Altitudo  Divinae  Provi- 
dentiae,  Feb.  7,  1541;  cf.  BRT  op.  cit.,  VI,  n.  34,  p.  309. 

90  Const.  Supplicari,  Bullaria  Fratrum  Praedicatorum ,  III,  n.  9,  p.  592; 

cf.  Vermeersch,  De  Jicligiosis  II,  n,  222,  p.  469. 


Pre-Code  Development  of  the  Law  19 

for  many  were  forbidden  to  confess  outside  of  their  order  as 
was  first  prohibited  to  the  Brothers  of  St.  Francis  de  Paula  by 
Julius  II  on  July  28,  1506.91  This  was  reaffirmed  for  the  Jes¬ 
uits  by  Paul  III  on  September  18,  1549.92  In  like  manner  Pius 
V  on  July  21,  1571  refused  the  Dominicans  the  privilege  of 
choosing  a  confessor  according  to  the  bull  Cruciatae  and  re¬ 
served  the  absolution  of  their  subjects  to  the  prelates  of  the 
order.93  And  even  during  the  seventeenth  century  there  is 
found  the  same  prohibition  for  the  Canons  Regular  of  the  Con¬ 
gregation  of  The  Holy  Cross  in  Portugal  laid  down  by  Urban 
VII  September  10,  162594  and  extended  by  this  Pontiff  to  the 
Benedictine  Monks  of  Portugal  on  May  30,  1629.95 

2.  From  Clement  VIII  to  the  Decree  “Quemadmodum.” 

A.  Exclusion  of  Superiors  as  Community  Confessors. 

The  Jesuits  were  obliged  from  time  to  time  to  make  a 
manifestation  of  conscience  to  their  superiors.  According  to 
St.  Ignatius  this  could  be  done  either  in  confession  or  outside  of 
it. 90  Since  the  Jesuit  General  Claudius  Aquaviva  had  prohi¬ 
bited  all  superiors  to  use  confessional  knowledge  for  external 
direction,  the  question  arose  as  to  whether  the  manifestation 
of  conscience  was  permissible  in  sacramental  confession.  The 
Spanish  Jesuits  submitted  this  question  to  the  Inquisition.  It 
was  transmitted  to  Sixtus  V  in  1590.  This  difficulty  afforded 
the  occasion  for  the  second  paragraph  of  Clement  VIII ’s  decree 
Sanctissimus  Dominus .97  Moreover,  another  restriction  had 
been  placed  upon  the  consciences  of  the  Regulars  by  the  two 
prevalent  reservation  of  cases.  The  Carthusian  Abbots  had  even 


91  Const.  Virtute  conspicuos  ;  BRT  V,  n.  13,  §  22,  p.  439. 

92  Const.  Licet  debitum;  BRT  VI,  n.  65,  §  10,  p.  395. 

93  Const.  Romani  pontificis;  BRT  VII,  n.  198,  §2,  p.  295;  Vermeersch, 

Per.  V,  p.  (2). 

94  Const.  Romani  pontificis;  BRT  XIII,  n.  59,  p.  396. 

95  Const.  Romanus  Pontifex;  BRT  XV,  n.  334,  p.  63;  Choupin,  L’Etat 

Rcligxcux,  p.  202;  Razon  y  Fe,  37  (1913),  375,  $§15,  16. 

96  Honore,  Le  Secret  de  la  Confession ,  p.  86;  Kurtschcid,  Das  Beichtsicgel , 

p.  118. 

97  Kurtsclieid;  loc,  cit, 


20 


Confessors  of  Male\  Religious 


gone  so  far  as  to  reserve  all  grave  sins  of  their  subjects,98  with 
the  result  that  the  liberty  of  confession  was  greatly  restricted. 
It  was  to  exterminate  such  abuses  that  Clement  introduced  a 
change  in  discipline  in  his  famous  decree  Sanctissimus  Dominus 
of  May  26,  1593.99 

Clement,  reducing  the  possible  reservations  to  nine  in  num¬ 
ber,  forbade  superiors  to  hear  the  confessions  of  their  subjects 
unless  it  was  a  question  of  a  reserved  sin  or  when  the  subject 
freely  and  spontaneously  approached  him  for  that  purpose.100 

The  superiors  were  to  appoint  in  the  individual  houses  two 
or  more  confessors  according  to  the  greater  or  lesser  number  of 
subjects.  These  confessors,  who  were  to  be  learned,  prudent 
and  charitable,  had  the  power  to  absolve  from  non-reserved 
cases.  Moreover,  the  faculty  to  absolve  from  reserved  cases  was 
to  be  granted  to  such  confessors,  whenever  a  case  should  occur, 
in  which  the  confessor,  who  was  to  be  the  first  to  judge  in  such 
matters,  thought  that  this  faculty  should  be  granted  to  him.101 
The  superiors  were  to  retain  the  power  of  defining  certain  grave 
penalties  to  be  imposed  by  the  confessors  for  more  grave  sins 
even  if  not  reserved.102  Upon  refusal  b*y  the  superior  of  a 
requested  faculty  to  absolve  from  any  reserved  case  the  con¬ 
fessor  could  absolve  without  any  further  request.103 

But,  as  Lehmkuhl104  states,  it  does  not  follow  from  this 
that  the  superior  could  never  legitimately  refuse  the  faculty  of 
absolving  from  reserved  cases  or  that  the  confessor,  if  the  super¬ 
ior  had  denied  the  faculty,  could  always  safely  absolve.  For 
if  the  relapse  should  become  the  external  occasion  of  sinning  or 
cause  some  other  damage,  especially  to  the  community,  there 
would  be  the  obligation  for  the  penitent  of  approaching  the 
superior.  Therefore  in  such  circumstances,  the  confessor  could 
not  absolve  without  having  obtained  the  faculty. 

\ 

93  Benedict  XIV,  De  Synodo  Dioecesana,  lib.  V,  c.  V,  n.  2. 

99  Decree,  Sanctissimus,  intro.;  FJC,  n.  177. 

100  ibid.,  $  1,  2. 

101  ibid.,  $3.  'v 

102  ibid.,  $  5. 

103  ibid.,  $  7.  * 

104  Thcol.  Mor.  (1910),  II,  n.  540. 


Pre-Code  Development  of  the  Law 


2i 


This  decree  had  full  force  for  all  regulars  despite  all  con¬ 
trary  constitutions,  immemorable  customs,  rules,  chapters,  privi¬ 
leges  and  concessions.105  This  was  the  most  important  step 
towards  liberty  of  conscience  that  the  penitential  discipline  for 
regulars  has  manifested  up  till  this  time. 

This  decree  was  followed  shortly  afterwards  by  another 
“Cum  ad  regular  em,”  of  March  19,  1603,  containing  a  pres¬ 
cription  for  the  novices  of  a  general  confession  on  entrance,100 
and  a  bi-monthly  confession  thereafter.107  The  duty  of  hearing 
these  confessions  was  committed  to  the  novice  master  alone. 
All  superiors,  however,  even  if  only  local,  could  hear  these  con¬ 
fessions  twice  a  year  or  appoint  a  priest  for  that  purpose.108 
These  prescriptions  were  soon  incorporated  in  the  constitutions 
of  different  orders.109  Urban  VIII  gave  to  regular  confessors, 
once  refused  by  their  superiors,  the  faculty  of  absolving  in  a 
special  case  from  reservations.110  Finally  the  Congregation  of 
Bishops  and  Regulars  on  August  16,  17,  1866  commanded  all 
superiors  of  small  communities  to  appoint  a  resident  confessor 
from  the  religious  of  their  own  order  with  the  faculty  of  absolv¬ 
ing  from  cases  and  censures  reserved  in  the  order.111 


B.  Privileges  Granted  to  Individual  Institutes. 

1.  The  Choice  of  a  Confessor. 

Although  Clement  VIII  excluded  superiors  from  the  office 
of  confessor  of  their  own  religious,  he  left  the  choice  of  the  con- 


105  Decree,  Sanctissimus,  $  7 ;  FJC,  ibid. 

loo  Clement  VIII,  Decree,  Cum  ad  regularem ;  BRT,  V,  n.  II,  $  7,  pp.  412- 
415;  cf.  Vermeersch,  De  Religiosis,  II,  n.  43,  p.  137;  confirmed  by 
Urban  VIII,  Oct.  26,  1624,  BRT,  XIII,  p.  215. 

107  Clement  VIII,  ibid.,  $  9. 

108  ibid.,  $  10;  cf.  Collectanea  Sacrae  Congregationis  de  Propaganda  Fide 

(ed.  1907),  n.  2064,  note  1. 

109  Constitutiones  Fratrum  Sancti  Ordinis  Praedicatorum,  Distinctio  I, 

De  Novitiis,  ch.  IV,  n.  4;  cf.  Holsten,  Codex  Regularum,  IV,  p.  39; 
cf.  Constitutiones  (editio  1886,  Paris),  n.  236;  for  Jesuits,  cf.  Leo 
XII,  Const.  Plura  inter,  July  11,  1826;  cf.  Bullarii  Romani  Continu¬ 
ation  VIII,  n.  155,  n.  438. 

no  Vermeersch,  Periodica,  V,  p.  (3);  Boudinhon,  Canoniste  Contemporain, 
36,  p.  704. 

in  Vermeersch,  De  Religiosis  II,  n.  228,  p.  485;  Boudinhon,  loc.  cit. 


22 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


fessors  of  the  community  entirely  in  their  hands.  Since  the 
decree  Sanctissimus  sufficiently  provided  for  the  liberty  of  con¬ 
science  of  religious,  this  same  Pontiff  in  virtue  of  his  consti¬ 
tution  Romani  Pontificis  of  November  23,  1599112  denied  the 
use  of  the  privilege  of  the  bull  Cruciatae  and  other  particular 
indults  to  all  members  of  religious  orders  and  other  institutes. 
His  intention  was  that  in  these  matters  of  confessional  admin¬ 
istration  the  religious  should  be  subject  to  the  disposition  of 
their  prelates.113  This  became  the  general  rule  of  ecclesiastical 
discipline.  Exceptions,  however,  were  made  by  different  Pon¬ 
tiffs  for  certain  reasons.  Thus  Benedict  XIV  on  March  30,  1742, 
revoked  a  particular  statute  laid  down  in  the  general  chapters 
of  the  Capuchins  which  forbade  confession  outside  of  their  own 
order.  This  was  causing  much  hardship  for  those  who  were 
legitimately  engaged  outside  of  their  convent  with  the  per¬ 
mission  of  their  superiors.  These  could  be  validly  and  licitly 
absolved  only  by  a  confessor  of  the  same  order  approved  by 
their  superior.114  Benedict  granted  tc  these  Capuchins  who 
were  outside  of  their  convent  with  the  permission  of  their  super¬ 
ior  the  right  to  confess,  freely  and  lawfully  in  the  absence  of  a 
priest  of  their  own  order,  to  any  secular  priest  approved  by  the 
local  ordinary  or  to  any  regular  priest  approved  by  his  proper 
superior.  These  confessors  thereby  received  the  faculty  to  ab¬ 
solve  from  cases  and  censures  reserved  in  the  order.  In  the 
latter  case  they  were  to  impose  the  penance  and  the  obligation  of 
going  to  their  regular  superior  and  again  asking  absolution.115 
The  same  permission  was  given  July  4,  1862,  by  the  Sacred 
Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regulars  after  an  audience  with 
Pius  IX,  to  the  Regulars  of  the  Order  of  the  Sacred  Heart  of 
Mary  belonging  to  the  suppressed  apostolic  college  of  the 
Blessed  Virgin  Mary,  in  the  Diocese  of  Guadalajara.110  This 

112  BRT  X,  p.  550,  $§2,3. 

H3  The  Jesuits  were  not  permitted  to  confess  to  any  priest  who  had  not 
received  faculties  from  their  superiors,  cf.  Leo  XII,  Const.  Plura 
inter,  $2;  cf.  Bullarii  Eomani  Continuatio,  VIII,  n.  155,  p.  438. 
in  Const.  Quod  communi;  $1;  BRT,  I,  n.  49,  p.  175. 
ns  ibid.  $  2. 

ii®  Bizzarri,  Collectanea  in  Usum  Sacrae  Congregationis  Episcoporum  et 
Eegularium,  p.  155. 


. 

Pre-Code  Development  of  the  Law 


*23 


decree  differed  from  the  concession  to  the  Capuchins  in  that 
both  regular  and  secular  confessors  had  to  be  approved  by  the 
local  ordinary.  This  privilege  extended  even  to  those  ejected 
religious  of  the  same  institute,  who  were  living  in  community, 
provided  that  they  did  not  have  four  confessors  of  their  own 
order  among  them. 


2.  Jubilee  Confessors. 

Another  evidence  of  the  tendency  of  the  Church  towards 
leniency  is  manifested  in  the  right  of  the  Jubilee  Confessor 
granted  to  religious.  It  was  Boniface  VIII,  who  first  confirmed 
the  ancient  Jewish  practice  of  the  jubilee,  required  an  interval 
of  one  hundred  years  between  jubilees  and  granted  certain  in¬ 
dulgences.117  This  was  reduced  to  fifty  years  by  Clement  V, 
January  7,  1343, 118  because  of  the  fact  that  the  span,  of  human 
life  was  so  short  as  to  make  it  impossible  for  the  faithful  to 
hope  to  see  a  jubilee  in  their  generation.119  Paul  II,  1390, 
established  the  interval  as  twenty-five  years,  which  is  retained 
today.120  Jubilees  are  divided  into  ordinary  and  extraordinary 
since  the  year  of  1475.  An  ordinary  jubilee  is  one  held  for  a 
year  in  Rome  and  then  extended  to  the  whole  world  and  an 
extraordinary  jubilee  is  granted  by  the  Pope  to  Rome  and  the 
whole  world  at  the  same  time  on  certain  major  solemnities  or 
peculiar  necessities  of  the  Church.121 

It  remained,  however,  for  Clement  V  to  first  concede  to 
regulars  the  right  of  a  choice  of  confessor  so  that  they  might 
obtain  the  jubilee  indulgence.  These  confessors,  once  approved 
by  the  local  ordinary,  when  chosen  by  the  regular  penitents 
received  faculties  to  absolve  from  all  sins,  censures  and  punish¬ 
ments  no  matter  how  they  were  inflicted  or  reserved  and  even 
those  contained  in  the  bull  Coena  Domini.  This  faculty  could 

c.  1.  V,  de  poenitentiis,  9,  in  Extravag.  com.;  cf.  Eason  y  Fe  (1904), 
8,  p.  512. 

H8  c.  2,  V,  de  poenitentiis,  9,  in  Extravag.  com. 

H9  Thurston,  Art.  Jubilee,  Cath.  Encyclo.,  VIII,  p.  553. 

120  Bull,  Ineffabilis  procidentia ;  BRT,  V,  p.  200  ff. 

121  Noldin,  De  Sacramentis,  n.  330,  p.  382;  McCarthy;  Am.  Ecc.  Eev. 

(1924),  LXX,  p.  564  ff. 


24 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


be  exercised  for  religious  only  on  one  occasion  during  the 
jubilee.122  This  received  confirmation  from  Benedict  XIV  by 
its  verbal  incorporation  November  11,  1740,  into  his  letter  on 
the  jubilee  Laetiora  apostolicae  servitutis.123  Benedict  XIV 
granted  greater  leniency  in  his  constitution,  Convocatis  of  Dec. 
5,  1749,  by  giving  to  the  penitentiaries  and  confessors  appointed 
in  Rome  for  the  jubilee  power  to  absolve,  in  the  internal  forum 
only,  any  regulars  of  any  order,  congregation  or  institute  con¬ 
fessing  to  them  even  under  prohibition  of  their  superiors  or 
constitutions  to  confess  outside  the  order.  The  absolution  had 
to  be  given  by  those  appointed  and  not  through  others.  Their 
faculties  extended  to  all  occult  excommunications  and  censures 
even  if  reserved  to  the  Holy  See  in  any  way,  including  those 
contained  in  the  bull  Coena  Domini  and  also  from  all  grave 
and  heinous  sins  even  reserved  to  the  Holy  See.  All  the  re¬ 
quirements  of  the  law  in  regard  to  enjoining  penances  were  to 
be  fulfilled.124  For  the  convenience  of  regular  communities  of 
all  orders,  congregations  and  institutes  the  number  of  con¬ 
fessors  for  the  jubilee  was  to  be  increased  and  the  same  faculties 
mentioned  above  given  to  them.125  This  was  extended  to  the 
whole  world  by  his  encyclical  letter  Benedictus  Dens,  of  De¬ 
cember  26,  1750.126 

The  only  reservations  that  remained  in  force  during  the 
jubilee  were  public  censures.  But  Leo  XII  removed  even  this 
restriction  in  1824.127  It.  is  to  be  noted  that  the  rules  for  jubi¬ 
lees,  whether  ordinary  or  extraordinary,  were  given  by  Benedict 
XIV  and  these  must  be  observed  even  today  in  every  respect, 
unless  a  special  pronouncement  with  contrary  prescriptions 
emanates  from  the  Holy  See.128 

It  is  evident  from  the  exclusion  of  the  superior  as  the 


i-’2  Const.  Unigenitus  Dei ,  May  14,  1655;  BBT  XVI,  n.  2,  p.  4. 

123  Bullarii  Bomani  Continuatio,  I,  n.  1,  $  4,  p.  2. 

124  Const.  Convocatis ;  Bullarii  Bomani  Continuatio,  III,  pt.  1,  n.  20,  25, 

p.  154  ff ;  cf.  FJC,  n.  402. 

125  ibid.,  n.  I. 

120  FJC,  n.  409. 

127  Const.  Annum  auspicatissimum,  Oct.  21,  1824;  Bullarii  Continuatio, 

VIII,  n.  67,  p.  253. 

128  Decreta  Authentica  Sacrae  Congregationis  Bituum,  n.  353,  March  15, 

1852;  cf.  Tanquerey,  Theol.  Mor.  I,  382. 


Pre-Code  Development  of  the  Law 


25 


regular  confessor  of  his  own  subjects,  and  the  limitation  of  the 
number  of  reservations  within  the  order  together  with  the  per¬ 
mission  to  confess  outside  of  the  order  granted  to  some  insti¬ 
tutes  and  the  jubilee  privileges,  that  the  constant  tendency  of 
the  Church  was  towards  leniency. 

3.  From  the  Decree  “  Quaemadmodum  to  the  Code  of 

Canon  Law. 

A.  Special  legislation  for  religious  men  of  simple  vows. 

Congregations  of  priests  of  simple  vows  were  ruled  by  the 
same  law  as  regulars  but  other  male  religious  of  simple  vows 
were  not  subject  to  the  discipline  of  the  unity  of  confessors.129 
Therefore  male  lay  religious,  subject  to  the  Bishop,  could  val¬ 
idly  confess  to  any  confessor,  approved  for  the  faithful  by  the 
Bishop.  It  was  the  mind  of  the  Holy  See  that  male  lay  reli¬ 
gious  subject  to  exempt  religious  superiors  should  be  given  the 
same  facilities  by  the  appointment  of  confessors.130  The  Coun¬ 
cil  of  Trent  had  made  regulations  for  the  ordinary  and 
extraordinary  confessor  of  female  religious131  and  Benedict  XIV 
in  his  famous  constitution,  Pastoralis  Curae 132  did  much  to 
lighten  the  hardships  of  confession  for  female  religious  but  it 
was  not  until  the  decree  Quemadmodum  of  Leo  XIII  edited 
December  17,  1890,  by  the  Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regu¬ 
lars  that  male  lay  religious  became  the  subjects  of  special  legis¬ 
lation  in  regard  to  confessional  discipline. 

Legislation  of  this  character  is  prompted  by  abuses.  Reli¬ 
gious  superiors  previous  to  this  decree  forced  their  subjects  to 
manifest  their  consciences  to  them.133 

As  a  result  the  decree  strictly  prohibited  any  manifesta- 

129  8.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Dec.  11,  1903;  Vermeersch,  Per.,  I,  n.  50,  p.  131; 
Boudinhon,  CC,  36,  p.  704,  705. 

180  Vermeersch,  Per.,  V,  p.  (3);  Choupin,  L’Etat  Eeligieux,  p.  203. 

131  Sess.  XXV,  De  Eegularibus,  c.  10;  Ehses,  Concilium  Tridentinum,  t.  9, 

1082. 

132  FJC.  n.  388. 

133  8.  C.  EE  et  RR.,  Decree,  Quemadmodum,  Dec.  17,  1890,  Intro.;  Col. 

S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1907)  n.  1745;  Vermeersch,  De  Bel.  II,  n.  230,  p.  488. 


26  Confessors  of  Male .  Religious 

tion  of  conscience.  Upon  violation  of  this  prescription  super¬ 
iors  were  to  be  denounced  by  their  subjects  to  the*  major  super¬ 
ior.  If  the  latter  was  guilty  the  denunciation  was  to  be  made 
to  the  Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regulars.  Subjects,  on 
the  other  hand,  for  the  sake  of  counsel,  could  of  their  own  free 
will  manifest  their  consciences  to  their  superiors.134  Some  su 
periors  had  even  prohibited  their  subjects  from  receiving  Holy 
Communion.  To  remove  this  abuse  the  Decree  Quemadmodum 
stated  that  the  granting  of  permission  or  the  prohibition  to  go  to 
Communion  belonged  to  the  confessor  unless  since  his  last  con¬ 
fession  the  subject  had  given  scandal  to  the  community.  All  su¬ 
periors  violating  these  mandates  would  incur  “ipso  facto” 
apostolic  punishments.135  This  decree  only  affected  institutes 
which  were  purely  lay  in  character  and  not  those  which  had  as 
members  many  priests.186 

B.  Superiors  prohibited  to  hear  confessions  of  their  subjects. 

There  had  grown  up  in  the  City  of  Rome  itself  the  custom 
in  some  religious  communities,  seminaries  and  colleges  of  the 
superiors  hearing  the  confessions  of  their  subjects  living  with 
them  in  the  same  house.  From  this  many  inconveniences  and 
numerous  grave  abuses  could  arise!  for  on  the  0113  hand  the  lib¬ 
erty  of  the  students  was  restricted  and  the  integrity  of  con¬ 
fession  endangered  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  superiors  were 
less  free  in  the  government  of  the  community  and  exposed  to 
suspicion  of  using  the  knowledge  received  in  confession  or  of 
being  better  disposed  towards  the  students  who  confessed  to 
them. 

To  avoid  these  evils  the  Congregation  of  the  Holy  Office 
by  the  express  command  of  Leo  XIII  strictly  forbade  such  super¬ 
iors,  whether  major  or  minor,  to  hear  the  confessions  of  their 
students,  living  in  the  same  house  with  them,  except  in  a  rare 
case  of  necessity,  in  which  they  felt  burdened  in  conscience  to 

134  ibid.  $  1. 

135  ibid.  §§  5,  8. 

130  Decl.  S.  C.  EE  et  RR  Apr.  5,  1891,  ad  2;  cf.  Vermeersch,  op.  cit.,  n. 

231,  p.  492. 


Pre-Code  Development  of  the  Law  27 

do  so.137  This,  however,  did  not  derogate  anything  contained  in 
the  apostolic  constitutions  and  especially  the  constitution,  Cum 
ad  Regular em,  published  March  19,  1603,  by  Clement  VIII,  for 
novices  of  religious  orders  ;138  nor  did  it  change  the  legislation 
for  religious  congregations  of  simple  and  perpetual  vows  living 
in  community  and  approved  by  the  Church.139 

C.  Confession  Outside  of  the  Monastery . 

Exempt  regulars,  as  was  seen  above,  when  living  in  their 
monastery  or  house  could  only  address  themselves  to  those  con¬ 
fessors  appointed  for  that  office  by  the  regular  prelate.  In  fact 
a  certain  number  of  religious  received  these  powers  to  hear  the 
confessions  of  the  community.  But  they  could  be  absolved  from 
reserved  cases  only  by  the  superior  or  his  delegate  having 
the  required  faculties.  Even  when  on^  a  voyage  or  in  a  case  of 
urgency,  if  the  confessor  companion,  whom  he  addressed, 
did  not  have  the  faculty  to  absolve  from  reserved  cases  the,  obli¬ 
gation  remained  on  the  penitent  of  presenting  himself  to  the 
superior  to  accuse  himself  of  his  fault  or  to  a  confessor  having 
the  required  powers  to  obtain  absolution  directly.  The  Congre¬ 
gation  of  Bishops  and  Regulars  stated  that  Lazarists  could  not 
without  the  permission  of  their  superiors  go  to  an  approved 
priest  not  of  their  own  institute  when  there  was  one  of  their  own 
congregation  easily  accessible.140  Some  secular  and  regular 
priests  began  to  ask  Rome  for  the  faculty  to  absolve  from  the 
cases  reserved  in  the  religious  institutes.  The  Sacred  Peniten¬ 
tiary,  when  it  judged  opportune,  accorded  on  certain  conditions 
the  ((pagella,>>  that  is  an  indult  with  special  faculties.141 

But  finally  in  1902  on  May  14  the  Sacred  Penitentiary  in 
reply  to  the  questions  of  a  secular  priest  in  regard  to  such 
confessions  stated : 

I.  If  the  superiors  and  other  confessors  had  been  away 

137  S.  B.  U.  Inquisitionis  ( S .  Officii)  July  5,  1899;  cf.  Vermeersch,  Be 

Beligiosis,  II,  n.  232,  p.  496;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  n.  2057;  Bucceroni, 
Casus  Conscientiae,  II,  p.  79. 

138  S.  U.  B.,  Inquisitionis,  Aug.  23,  1899;  Vermeersch.  op.  cit.,  p.  497. 

139  S.  U.  B.  Inquisitionis,  Dec.  20,  1899;  Vermeersch,  op.  cit.,  p.  498. 

140  g.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Sept.  28,  1881;  Boudinhon.  CC  36,  p.  706. 

141  Choupin,  L’Etat  Beligieux,  p.  204. 


28 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


from  the  religious  house  at  least  one  day  and  it  was  hard  for 
the  religious  to  be  without  absolution  any  longer  he  could  be 
validly  and  licitly  absolved  by  any  suitable  extraneous  priest 
approved  for  confessions,  whom  he  approached.142 

II.  Priests  who  had  received  the  “pagella”  or  faculties 
granted  by  the  Penitentiary  to  absolve  religious  of  any  order, 
who  had  the  permission  of  tlieir  superiors  to  confess,  could  ab¬ 
solve  from  all  cases  no  matter  how  they  were  reserved  in  the 
order. 

III.  Regular  confessors  of  the  same  order,  if  approved  to 
hear  the  confessions  of  religious  of  the  order,  could  also  absolve 
from  these  cases  if  they  had  the  same  faculty. 

IV.  Superiors  when  granting  permission  for  their  sub¬ 
jects  to  confess  to  such  confessors  could  not  impose  the  restric¬ 
tion  “ provided  you  observe  the  customs  of  the  order  on  reser¬ 
vations,  ’  ’  for  by  the  very  permission  the  confessor  could  absolve 
in  virtue  of  his  faculties  received  from  the  Sacred  Penitentiary, 
independently  of  the  will  of  the  superior. 

V.  This  could  not  be  extended  to  the  case  where  a  religious 
on  a  journey  went  without  the  express  faculty  of  his  superior 
to  an  extraneous  confessor  unless  the  latter  had  special  faculties 
from  the  Holy  See  to  absolve  from  such  cases  reserved  in  the 
order.143 

Some  further  privileges  were  granted  for  particular  con¬ 
ditions  and  circumstances.  For  example,  priests  going  to  the 
Chinese  missions  could  hear  the  confessions  of  all  accompanying 
them,  including  regulars,  during  the  course  of  the  entire  jour¬ 
ney.  They  were  required  to  have  the  approbation  of  their  su¬ 
perior,  if  regulars,  or  the  proper  ordinary  of  the  diocese  from 
which  they  came,  to  which  they  were  going  or  through  which 
they  were  passing.144 

142  Sacrae  Penitentiariae,  Besp.  May  14,  1902,  ad.  1 ;  cf.  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F. 

(ed.  1907),  n.  2141;  cf.  Vermeersch,  De  Eel.  II,  n.  234,  p.  499; 

Boudinhon,  La  Confession  Des  Beligieux,  CC.  (1913)  vol.  36,  p.  702 

ff;  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  204. 

143  S'  Penit.f  ibid.  n.  2-5:  cf.  Ferreres,  Eason  y  Fe  (1903),  vol.  7,  p.  117, 

ft’ ;  (1913),  vol  37,  p.  376. 

144  s.  C.  Propagandae  Fidei;  Pluries  petitum ,  Feb.  4,  1907;  Vermeersch, 

De  Eeligiosis  II,  n.  278  (ter),  p.  597. 


Pre-Code  Development  of  the  Law 


29 


Another  concession  was  made  in  1911  when  Pius  X  gave  to 
Cardinals  the  faculty  of  hearing  confessions  of  religious  of  both 
sexes  all  over  the  "world  and  of  absolving  from  all  sins  and  cen¬ 
sures  except  those  censures  reserved  in  a  most  special  way  to  the 
Holy  See  or  those  inflicted  for  the  revelation  of  the  secrets  of 
the  Holy  Office.145 

D.  Choice  of  a  Confessor. 

Despite  all  these  concessions  the  discipline  for  regulars  did 
not  give  entire  liberty  for  the  choice  of  confessors.  Assuredly 
this  system  had  its  advantages  but  was  also  the  source  of  many 
grave  inconveniences.  All  these  restrictions  in  regard  to  the 
choice  of  the  confessor  could  often  be  fatal  for  souls  in  a  matter 
where  full  liberty  of  confessing  is,  God  aiding,  the  surest  guar¬ 
antee  of  the  good  dispositions  of  penitent.  To  remove  these 
difficulties  the  Holy  See  modified  and  ameliorated  the  discipline 
in  force  up  till  that  time  by  the  communication  of  Pius  X  of  the 
8th  of  February,  913. 146  This  was  not  published  in  the  official 
Acta  Apostolicae  Sedis  but  given  to  each  confessor  of  Rome 
individually.  By  virtue  of  this,  all  confessors  approved  by  the 
Ordinary  of  Rome  had  the  faculty  to  absolve  religious  of  all 
orders  approaching  him  even  without  the  permission  of  the 
superior  and  moreover  there  was  no  necessity  of  recourse.  On 
the  5th  of  August  of  the  same  year  Pius  extended  this  faculty 
through  the  Sacred  Congregation  of  Religious  to*  all  the  confes¬ 
sors  of  the  world  approved  by  their  local  Ordinaries.147  This 
decree  accomplished  a  complete  change  in  the  law  for  regulars. 
Although  the  constitutions  of  religious  institutes  concerning 
the  regular  confessors  and  confession  at  definite  times  still 
had  full  force,  nevertheless  this  decree  suppressed  the  ancient 
limitations  and  restrictions  and  gave  all  members  of  all  religious 
orders,  congregations  and  institutes  full  freedom  to  choose  their 


145  Ex  audientia  SSmi  D.  N.  Pii  PP.  X;  Gratia  Dec.  20,  1911;  cf. 

Vermeersch,  Per.  VII,  n.  737,  $  1,  p.  251. 

146  Vermeersch,  Per.  VII,  n.  702,  p.  175;  Boudinhon,  CC,  36,  p.  698; 

Lehmkuhl,  Theol.  Mor.,  II,  p.  299;  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  212. 

147  Acta  Apostolicae  Sedis  (1913),  V,  p.  431. 


30 


Confessors  of  Male  Religions 


confessors  at  other  times.  The  authority  of  the  confessor  lay 
solely  in  the  fact  that  the  penitent  came  to  him.148  As  a  result 
regulars  could  validly  and  licitly  confess  to  all  their  confreres 
or  any  secular  or  regular  having  episcopal  approbation.  The  per¬ 
mission  of  the  superior  required  by  the  famous  constitution, 
Inter  Cunctas  of  Benedict  XI  on  the  Mendicant  privileges  was 
no  longer  necessary.149  Although  no  censures  were  suppressed 
by  this  decree  the  reservation  of  sins  and  censures  in  the  order 
seemed  to  have  lost  all  force  ini  practice.  The  power  of  absolu¬ 
tion  held  only  for  the  internal  forum.  The  decree  was  silent 
about  cases  reserved  to  the  Pope  and  it  was  deduced  that  the 
confessor  could  absolve  religious  from  those,  from  which  he 
could  absolve  the  faithful.  If,  however,  the  confessor  received 
his  jurisdiction  from  a  regular  superior  he  could  absolve  also 
from  episcopal  reserved  cases.  This  held  even  if  he  was  not 
officially  constituted  as  the  confessor  of  his  confreres  in  the 
order.150  This  decree  concerned  the  religious  exclusively  and 
it  could  be  applied  to  all  religious  without  exception.151  Novices 
also  had  this  privilege  of  choice  of  confessor,152  and  confessors  of 
the  Oriental  rite  could  hear  confessions  of  religious  of  the  Latin 
rite  and  vice-versa.153 

This  decree  marks  the  climax  of  pre-code  legislation  on  the 
confessor  of  regulars  and  has  been  practically  incorporated  into 
the  Code  in  the  canons  which  will  be  treated  in  the  subsequent 
chapters. 

148  Boudinhon,  loc.  cit. 

149  c.  I,  de  privilegiis,  V,  7,  in  Extravag.  com. 

150  Vermeersch,  Per.  VII,  p.  174. 

151  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  218. 

152  s.  c.  De  Eel.  May  3,  1914,  ad.  2;  A  A  S,  VI,  232:  Vermeersch,  Per. 

VIII,  n.  15,  p.  39. 

153  S.  C.  de  Eel.  ibid,  ad  1. 


CHAPTER  II. 


CONFESSORS  OF  CLERICAL  INSTITUTES. 

Article  I. 

Appointed  Confessors. 

Although  in  most  rules  of  religious  orders  there  was  the 
prescription  that  there  should  be  besides  the  Superior  other 
priests  appointed  to  whom  the  religious  could  confess,  neverthe¬ 
less  it  was  not  until  the  decree  Sanctissimus  of  Clement  the 
VIII  that  the  appointment  of  other  confessors  became  an  obli¬ 
gation  upon  all  regular  superiors.  Clement  demanded  that  the 
number  of  appointed  confessors  should  be  two  or  more  pro¬ 
portionate  to  the  number  of  subjects.  The  Sacred  Congregation 
of  Bishops  and  Regulars  August  16-17,  1866,  demanded  that 
even  in  small  communities  superiors  should  appoint  one  con¬ 
fessor  from  the  same  order  having  the  faculty  of  absolving  from 
cases  and  censures  reserved  within  the  order. 

Exempt  clerical  congregations  followed  the  same  rules  as 
the  religious  orders  and  their  superiors  appointed  the  confessors 
and  delegated  jurisdiction  to  hear  the  confessions  of  their  sub¬ 
jects  while  non-exempt  congregations  were  subject  to  the  Bishop 
in  these  matters. 

The  Code  makes  no  distinction  and  requires  that  confessors 
be  appointed  in  the  same  way  for  all  clerical  institutes. 

CANON  518. 

§  1.  In  singulis  religionis  clericalis  domibus  deputen- 
tur  plures  pro  sodalium  numero  confessarii  legitime  ap¬ 
probate  cum  pot  estate,  si  agatur  de  religione  exempt  a, 
absolvendi  etiam  a  casibus  in  religione  reservatis. 


[31] 


32 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


In  the  houses  of  every  clerical  institute  there  shall  be  dep¬ 
uted,  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  subjects,  several  legit¬ 
imately  approved  confessors  with  power,  if  it  be  a  question  of 
an  exempt  Institute,  to  absolve  from  the  cases  reserved  in  the 
Institute. 


Definition  of  terms. 

I.  An  Institute — every  society,  approved  by  legitimate 
ecclesiastical  authority,  the  members  of  which  tend  to  evangeli¬ 
cal  perfection,  according'  to  the  laws  proper  to  ^heir  society,  by 
the  profession  of  public  vows,  whether  perpetual  or  temporary, 
the  latter  renewable  after  the  lapse  of  a  fixed  time.1 

II.  A  Clerical  Institute — every  institute,  the  majority  of 
whose  members  receive  the  order  of  priesthood ;  otherwise  it 
is  a  lay  institute.2 

This  canon,  518,  refers  to  all  clerical  institutes  including 
even  non-exempt  congregations.3 

The  Appointment  of  Confessors. 

These  confessors  must  be  appointed  in  every  house  of  cleri¬ 
cal  institutes.4 

Appointment  means  the  designation  of  the  confessor  which  * 
is  generally  done  after  examination  and  verification  of  fitness5 
and  the  grant  of  faculties. 

The  number  of  confessors  to  be  appointed  is  not  definitely 
determined  by  the  Code.  Following  the  rule  of  Clement  VIII6 
the  Code  demands  a  number  proportionate  to  the  number  of  the 
members  in  the  community.  There  should  be  at  least  two  ap¬ 
pointed,  for  the  canon  uses  the  word  plures  and  according  to 
the  rule  of  law  i(Pluralis  locutio ,  duorum  numero  est  con- 

1  Can.  488.  I  (All  translations  of  canons  referring  to  religious  are  taken 

from  the  authorized  english  translation,  entitled,  Canonical  Legis¬ 
lation  Concerning  Religious,  Rome,  1924.) 

2  Can.  488,  4°. 

3  Genicot,  Institutions  Thcologiae  Moralis  (ed.  10,  1922),  n.  337,  IV. 

4  Can.  488,  5°. 

5  Augustine,  A  Commentary  on  Canon  Law,  III,  p.  152. 

0  Decree,  Sanctissunus,  May  26,  1593;  FJC  n.  177  $3. 


Confessors  of  Clerical  Institutes 


33 


tenta.”  7  Therefore,  superiors  would  not  satisfy  their  obliga¬ 
tion  by  only  appointing  one  confessor  in  the  individual  clerical 
houses.  The  assignment  of  a  certain  number  of  religious  to 
each  confessor,  as  the  exclusive  confessor  of  that  group,  seems 
to  be  against  the  spirit  of  the  lawT.8  It  breaks  down  the  liberty 
of  conscience  which  the  Code  is  trying  so  hard  to  safeguard. 
The  number  of  those  members  upon  which  this  computation  is 
to  be  based  includes  all  the  professed,  novices,  and  other  per¬ 
sons  dwelling  day  and  night  in  the  religious  house  by  reason  of 
service,  education,  hospitality  or  health.9  Both  the  exempt  reli¬ 
gious  superior10  for  his  own  institute  and  the  local  Ordinary 
for  non-exempt  institutes11  can  delegate,  as  confessors  of  the 
individual  houses,  priests  of  the  secular  clergy  or  another  insti¬ 
tute.  But  the  implicit  meaning  of  the  canon  is  that  these  con¬ 
fessors  should  be  appointed  from  the  same  house  and  institute, 
whether  exempt  or  non  exempt,  for  they  are  to  reside  habitually 
in  the  same  house.12  It  would  be  well  for  the  competent  super¬ 
iors  to  delegate  this  power  also  to  retreat  masters. 

1.  In  Exempt  Clerical  Institutes. 

The  exempt  superior  cannot  reserve  to  himself  the  office 
of  hearing  the  confessions  of  his  subjects  within  the  cloister,  but 
is  bound  to  appoint  other  confessors.13 

The  canon  states  that  the  priests  must  be  t(  legitime  appro¬ 
bate  *  Legitimate  approbation  is  the  grant  of  jurisdiction  to 
hear  confessions  validly  and  licitly.  The  faculty  to  hear  con¬ 
fessions  belongs  to  the  internal  forum,  but  the  granting  of  that 
faculty  is  an  act  of  public  jurisdiction  in  the  external  forum, 
the  result  of  jurisdiction  proper.14  Therefore,  approval  can  be 
given  and  appointment  made  by  one  who  enjoys  jurisdiction. 

7  R.  J.  in  YI°,  Reg.  XL;  Decree,  Scinctissimus,  loc.  cit.;  cf.  Blat,  II  pars 

II,  n.  579. 

8  cf.  Augustine,  III,  p.  153. 

9  Can.  514,  $  1 ;  cf.  Augustine,  loc.  cit. 

10  Can.  875,  $  1. 

11  Can.  874,  $  1. 

12  Decree  of  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Aug.  17,  1866;  Vermeersch,  De  Eel.  II,  n. 

228,  p.  485. 

13  Can.  518  §2;  891;  Fanfani,  loc.  cit , 

14  Augustine  op.  cit.f  III,  p.  153. 


34 


Confessors  of  Male  Religions 


The  principles  governing  the  granting  of  this  approbation 
are  contained  in  the  following  canon. 

CANON  875. 

§  1.  In  religione  clericali  exempta  ad  recipiendas 
confessiones  professorum,  novitiorum  aliorumve  de  qui- 
bus  in  Can.  514,  §  1,  jurisdictionem  delegatam  confert  quo 
que  proprius  eorundem  Superior,  ad  normam  constitu- 
tionum;  cui  fas  est  earn  concedere  etiam  sacerdotibus  e! 
clero  saeculari  aut  alius  religionis. 

Power  of  Delegating  Jurisdiction  for  Exempt  Religious. 

Superiors  who  can  delegate  this  jurisdiction,  are  major  su¬ 
periors,  possessing  jurisdiction  in  the  external  forum,  i.  e.,  the 
Superior  General  or  Provincial  of  an  exempt  order  and  the 
Abbot  of  each  independent  monastery.15  But  “The  Abbot  Pri¬ 
mate  and  Abbots  Presidents,”  as  Augustine16  rightly  states, 
1 1  are  not  empowered  to  give  faculties  either  for  the  order  or  re¬ 
spective  congregation ;  neither  can  the  cloistral  priors  or  guar¬ 
dians  except  by  sub-delegation,  grant  such  faculties.”  On  the 
other  hand,  appealing  to  the  constitution,  “ Romani  Pontificis”  of 
Pius  V17  Augustine  claims  that,  according  to  the  better  opinion 
held  by  the  majority,  both  conventual  priors  and  guardians, 
have  this  power  of  granting  jurisdiction,  since  this  constitution 
“expressly  mentions  the  conventual  priors  as  endowed  with  the 
same  faculties  as  the  Ordinaries  with  regard  to  absolution  and 
dispensation.”18  This  cannot  be  admitted,  since  a  reading  of 
the  constitution  reveals  no  express  mention  of  the  conventual 
prior  as  having  such  faculties.  Moreover,  the  canon  now  under 
consideration  states  explicitly  that  the  proper  superior  “ad 
normam  constitutionum”  has  this  power  and  therefore  the  con- 

15  Can.  488,  8°;  ef.  Blat,  op.  cit.,  Ill,  pars  I,  n.  198;  Augustine,  A  Com¬ 
mentary  on  Canon  Law ,  III,  p.  154. 
io  op.  cit.,  p.  154,  note  5. 

17  Aug.  6,  1571;  FJC  n.  139;  Augustine  does  not  quote  the  place  whero 

this  constitution  can  be  found  nor  its  date,  but  the  one  of  Aug.  6, 
1571,  is  the  only  one  of  many,  which  Pius  V  introduces  with  these 
same  words,  that  could  possibly  refer  to  the  point  in  question. 

18  Augustine,  loc.  cit, 


Confessors  of  Clerical  Institutes 


35 


stitutions  of  each  institute  must  be  consulted  to  determine  just 
what  superiors  have  ordinary  jurisdiction  over  their  subjects 
and  can  in  virtue  of  this  power  delegate  confessional  jurisdic¬ 
tion.  The  prescriptions  of  these  constitutions  must  be  followed 
in  this  matter.19 

The  Constitutions  of  the  Friars  Minor  of  the  year  192220 
grant  this  power  of  delegating  faculties,  for  confessions  of  the 
religious  of  the  order,  to  the  Minister  General  and  the  Provin¬ 
cial  but  without  any  mention,  of  the  guardians. 

The  constitutions  can,  moreover,  take  away  from  superiors 
the  power  of  delegating  jurisdiction  to  hear  the  confessions  of 
their  subjects,  which  common  law  has  given  them.  This  is 
deduced  from  Canons  199  §  1,  873  §  2,  and  875  §  1,  which 
leave  the  determination  of  the  power  td  delegate  entirely  to  the 
constitutions.  Thus  local  superiors  of  the  Friars  Minor  cannot 
delegate  to  other  Friars  the  faculty  to  hear  the  confessions  of 
their  subjects,  although  they  certainly  have  that  power  by  com¬ 
mon  law.  But  if  a  restriction  of  this  power  is  intended  the 
constitutions  should  explicitly  say  so.21 

The  phrase  of  Canon  875  §  1  “  jurisdictionem  deleg  at  am 
co7ifert  quoque  proprius  eorundem  superior”  implies  because  of 
the  word  “ quoque”  that  the  persons  mentioned  in  Canon  875 
§  1  and  514  §  1,  can  confess  to  confessors  approved  by  the 
Ordinary  of  the  place  as  well  as  those  approved  by  the  reli¬ 
gious  superior.22 

Method  of  Delegating  Such  Jurisdiction. 

The  superior  can  delegate  directly  by  personally  appointing 
the  confessor  to  hear  confessions  of  his  subjects.  Indirect  dele¬ 
gation  on  the  other  hand  would  suffice,  e.  g.,  if  a  superior  gave 
a  religious  subject  to  him  the  faculty  to  choose  a  confessor  for 
himself  during  a  journey.  The  chosen  priest,  even  if  of  another 
institute,  or  the  secular  clergy,  and  even  if  he  be  not  approved 

19  cf.  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  127 ;  Blat,  op.  cit.,  n.  198. 

20  Constitutiones  Generales  Ordinis  Fratrum  Minorum,  n.  346. 

21  CpR,  (1923)  IV,  p.  341;  (1926)  VII,  p.  40. 

22  Cf.  Blat,  III,  pars  I,  n.  198;  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  127. 


36 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 

by  the  bishop,  has  thereby  faculties  from  the  religious  super¬ 
ior  for  that  confession.  This  delegation  may  be  permanent  or 
onty  temporary ;  for  all  or  only  for  one  or  another  of  his  sub¬ 
jects.23  This  delegation  should  be  given  expressly  either  by 
word  of  mouth  or  in  writing.  The  code  does  not  permit  tacit 
or  presumed  delegation  to  hear  confessions.24 

Powers  of  Delegated  Confessors . 

Some  of  these  confessors  of  exempt  institutes  must  be  given 
the  faculties  to  absolve  from  all  cases  reserved  within  the 
order,  even  if  reserved  with  censure.25  It  is  not  necessary  that 
all  appointed  confessors  have  such  faculties  since  the  canon  uses 
the  word  “plures.”  The  requirement  that  a  number  of  confes¬ 
sors  receive  these  faculties  is  sufficiently  fulfilled  by  granting 
such  faculties  to  at  least  two  confessors,  (“Pluralis  locutio,  duo- 
rum  numero  est  contenta”),26  who  therefore  comprise  the  mini¬ 
mum  number.  This  delegated  jurisdiction  is  personal  as  is  evi¬ 
dent  from  Canon  875  §  1  and,  since  it  is  not  restricted  to  any 
place,  confessions  of  those  religious  for  whom  these  confessors 
were  appointed  can  be  heard  even  outside  of  the  monastery.  No 
additional  faculties  from  the  local  Ordinary  are  required.27 
Such  a  delegated  priest  has  faculties  for  the  whole  order  if  they 
were  granted  by  the  General  and  for  the  members  of  a  province 
if  by  a  Provincial.28 

Since  faculties  over  cases  reserved  within  the  order  must 
be  given  to  the  confessors  appointed  for  the  house  in  virtue  of 
Canon  518  §  1  and  are  given  “a  jure”  to  the  confessor  to  whom 
the  religious  approach  for  the  peace  of  their  conscience  in 
virtue  of  Canon  519  reservation  within  the  order  has  practically 
lost  all  force.29 

23  Fanfani,  De  Jure  Beligiosorum,  n.  127;  Blat,  III,  pars  I,  n.  202. 

24  Can.  879,  $1;  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  II,  n.  147;  Fanfani,  loc.  cit., 

Blat,  loc.  cit. 

25  Can.  518,  $  1. 

26  R.  J.  in  VI0,  Reg  XL;  cf.  Blat,  op.  cit.,  II,  pars  II,  n.  579. 

27  cf.  Lehmkuhl,  Theol.  Mor.  II,  n.  511. 

28  Constitutiones  O.  F.  M.,  n.  347. 

29  Can.  896;  Dargin,  Beserved  Cases  according  to  the  New  Code,  p.  22. 


Confessors  of  Clerical  Institutes 


37 


Since  these  appointed  confessors  receive  their  faculties  from 
the  exempt  religious  superior,  their  power  of  absolution  is  not 
affected  by  episcopal  reservations.  In  regard  to  reservations 
by  common  law  they  will  have  to  observe  the  prescriptions  of 
the  Code  for  the  absolution  of  the  faithful.30 

Penitents  Who  Can  Be  Absolved  in  Virtue  of  This  Delega¬ 
tion. 

The  old  law  which  was  based  upon  the  constitution  “Su- 
perna”  of  Clement  X  published  on  June  21,  167031  and  the 
Council  of  Trent  32  granted  to  regular  prelates  and  the  confes¬ 
sors  of  the  same  order,  the  right  to  hear  in  their  monasteries 
and  colleges,  the  confessions  of  those,  who  were  truly  of  the 
family  and  lived  there,  but  not  of  the  servants.  That  is  to  say 
those  who  continually  lived  and  boarded  there,  staying  within 
the  walls  of  the  monastery,  partook  of  the  exemption  from  the 
diocesan  bishop  and  were  subject  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
regular  prelate.  Therefore  their  absolution  did  not  depend  upon 
the  jurisdiction  and  approbation  of  the  bishop.33  The  code, 
however,  is  much  more  lenient  and  extends  this  privilege  of 
confession  to  regular  confessors  to  those  enumerated  in  Canon 
514,  §  1.  Therefore,  not  only  the  professed  and  novices  can  con¬ 
fess  to  these  confessors,  but  even  servants,  students,  guests  and 
the  sick.  It  is  required  that  these  persons  stay  in  the  religious 
house  day  and  night.  The  religious  house  includes  the  entire 
premises  and  even  a  number  of  buildings  as  long  as  the  religious 
actually  possess  and  inhabit  them.34 

Since  they  must  stay  there  day  and  night,  the  following 
can  be  considered  as  subjects  in  the  sense  of  this  canon,  i.  e., 
boarding  students,  guests  coming  to  visit  relatives,  sick  persons 
cared  for  by  the  religious,  whether  they  are  relatives  or  not  and 
especially  if  the  religious  have  an  hospital  on  their  premises. 

30  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  131. 

31  FJC  n.  246,  $  4. 

32  Sess.  XXV,  De  Ref.  c.  11;  Ehses,  Concilium  Tridentinum,  IX,  p.  1082. 

33  Lehmkuhl,  Tlieol.  Mor.  II,  n.  512. 

34  Augustine,  op.  cit.,  p.  144. 


38 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


It  is  not  necessary  that  an  entire  day  should  have  passed  as 
long  as  they  stay  there  after  sundown  and  over  night  or  even 
have  the  intention  to  stay  there  for  that  length  of  time.  There¬ 
fore  postulants  or  others  having  the  required  intention,  can 
confess  from  the  moment  that  they  enter.35  This  is  the  almost 
universal  opinion. 

De  Meester36  contradicts,  requiring  that  they  stay  some 
time  longer  than  a  night.  But  this  opinion  finds  it  hard  to 
place  a  definite  limit  upon  the  exact  length  of  time  that  the 
above  mentioned  persons  must  stay.  Therefore,  in  the  practical 
use  of  this  faculty,  it  will  come  to  the  same  conclusion  as  the 
first  opinion  since  any  other  method  of  limiting  the  time  would 
be  impractical. 

Those  who  would  not  be  able  to  use  this  faculty  would 
include  day  scholars,37  and  workers  who  live  outside  the  mon¬ 
astery.38 


2.  In  Non-Exempfi  Clerical  Institutes. 

It  belongs  to  the  local  Ordinary  to  appoint  confessors  for 
the  individual  houses  of  these  institutes  and  grant  them  facul¬ 
ties  to  hear  the  confessions  of  the  community  according  to  the 
prescriptions  of  Canon  518,  §  l.39  There  must  be  two  confessors 
at  least,  appointed  for  every  house  as  in  exempt  institutes.  The 
legitimate  approbation  for  confessors  of  non-exempt  institutes 
since  it  is  synonymous  with  jurisdiction  must  be  received  from 
the  Ordinary  of  the  place  where  the  confessions  are  to  be  heard. 
These  faculties  do  not  hold  outside  of  the  territory  of  the 
delegating  bishop. 

For  non-exempt  institutes  in  regard  to  episcopal  reserva¬ 
tions  and  reservations  by  common  law  the  confessor  must  ob- 

35  Fanfani,  De  Jure  Religiosorum,  n.  127;  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.,  n. 
581;  Cocchi,  Commentarium  in  Codicem  Juris  Canonici,  1.  II,  pars 
II,  n.  28;  Chelodi,  Jus  de  Personis,  n.  251. 

30  Juris  Canonici  Compendium,  II,  p.  406. 

37  Papi,  Religious  in  Church  Laiv,  p.  148 ;  Augustine,  loc.  cit. 

38  s.  C.  EE  et  RR,  July  21,  1848;  cf.  Bizzarri,  p.  564  ff. 

39  Can.  874  $  1;  ef.  can.  875  S  1;  Fanfani,  De  Jure  Religiosorum,  n.  127. 


Confessors  of  Clerical  Institutes 


39 


serve  the  prescriptions  of  the  Code  for  the  absolution  of  the 
absolution  of  the  faithful.40 

Article  II. 

The  Superior  as  Confessor. 

CANON  518. 

§  2.  Superiores  religiosi,  potestatem  audiendi  confes- 
siones  habentes,  possunt,  servatis  de  iure  servandis,  con- 
fessiones  audire  subditorum,  qui  ab  illis  sponte  sua  ac 
motu  proprio  id  petant,  at  sine  gravi  causa  id  per  modum 
habitus  ne  agant. 

The  prohibition  contained  in  this  canon  prevents  religious 
superiors  from  becoming  the  regular  confessors  of  their  own 
religious,  unless  there  is  a  grave  reason  to  justify  this. 

The  Superiors — This  canon  uses  the  generic  term  and  there¬ 
fore  includes  all  religious  superiors,  endowed  with  the  power  of 
hearing  confessions  whether  this  power  be  ordinary,  as  in  the 
case  of  an  exempt  institute,  (Can.  501,  §  1)  or  delegated  by  a 
special  privilege  of  the  Pontiff  or  by  the  Ordinary.41  The  canon 
then  extends  to  major  superiors  such  as,  the  Abbot  Primate, 
the  Abbot  superior  of  a  monastic  congregation,  the  Abbot  of  an 
independent  monastery,  even  though  it  form  part  of  a  monastic 
congregation,  the  Superior  General  of  the  whole  Institute,  the 
Provincial  Superior,  their  Vicars  and  all  others  who  have  pow¬ 
ers  equivalent  to  those  of  Provincials  ;42  and  also  to  minor  super¬ 
iors43  but  not  to  those  who  are  not  superiors  properly  so-called 
in  the  sense  of  the  canon.44 

The  Subjects — By  these  words  are  to  be  understood  sub¬ 
jects  properly  so-called,  i.  e.,  those  habitually  and  fully  under 
the  power  of  their  respective  superior.  The  Pontifical  Com- 

40  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  131. 

41  Larraona,  CpR,  (1920),  vol.  I,  54. 

42  Can.  488,  8°. 

43  Goyeneche,  CpR.  (1923)  vol.  IV,  p.  341. 

44  Larraona,  loc.  cit. 


40 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


mission  for  the  Authentic  Interpretation  of  the  Code  stated 
September  29,  1918,  that  the  prescriptions  of  Canon  518,  §  2, 
must  be  observed  by  superiors  in  regard  to  student  subjects, 
who  form  a  section  somewhat  distinct  from  the  community. 
The  words  of  the  Commission  are  “ Quondam,  Studentes  partem 
a  Communitate  aliquo  modo  sejunctam  efformant,  respectu 
eorum  observandus  est  Can.  518,  §  2.”  45  This  was  not  published 
in  the  Acta  Apostolicae  Sedis,  and  therefore  does  not  bind  uni¬ 
versally,  but  it  is  an  indication  of  the  mind  of  the  legislator  on 
this  matter. 

The  prohibition  of  this  lawT  does  not  extend  to  those  reli¬ 
gious  who  occasionally  stay  at  the  house  or  within  the  province, 
if  it  be  a  question  of  a  major  superior,  provided  they  remain 
fully  subject  to  another  proper  superior  of  equal  rank;46  nor 
to  day  students  at  any  time ;  or  boarding  students  during  their 
vacations  and  holidays.47 

Conditions  required  to  hear  the  confessions  of  subjects. — 
By  way  of  exception  the  superior  may  lawfully  receive  the  con¬ 
fessions  of  his  own  subjects  upon  fulfillment  of  the  following 
requirements. 

I.  The  subject  must  spontaneously  and  freely  approach  for 
that  purpose,  in  which  event  he  can  be  validly  and  licitly 
absolved  by  the  superior  having  the  required  power  to  hear 
confessions.  Commentators  before  the  Code  disputed  as  to 
whether  these  words  <(sponte  sua  ac  motu  proprio”  of  the  De¬ 
cree  Sanctissimus  of  Clement  VIII48  were  to  be  taken  copula- 
tively,  i.  e.,  both  freedom  and  the  initiative  being  required  on 
the  part  of  the  religious,  or  disjunctively,  which  implies  that 
although  the  subject  must  be  free  in  his  approach,  nevertheless 
that  counsel  or  exhortation  on  the  part  of  the  superior  were 

45  LQS  LXXIV  (1921),  439. 

46  Larraona,  loc.  cit. 

47  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  588. 

48  May  26,  1593,  $2;  FJC  n.  177. 


Confessors  of  Clerical  Institutes 


41 


not  excluded.49  This  difficulty  no  longer  exists  in  the  code  for 
Can.  518,  §  3,  expressly  forbids  anything  on  the  part  of  the 
superior  contrary  to  §  2. 

CANON  518. 

§  3.  Caveant  Superiores  ne  quern  subditum  aut  ipsi 
per  se  aut  per  alium  vi,  metu,  importunis  suasionibus 
aliave  ratione  inducant  ut  peccata  apud  se  confiteatur. 

Superiors  must  take  care  not  to  induce,  personally  or 
through  others,  by  force,  by  fear,  or  by  importunate  persuasion, 
or  by  any  other  means  any  of  their  subjects  to  confess  their 
sins  to  them.  This  is  an  authentic  interpretation  of  §  2  and 
demands  that  the  words  “sponte  sua  ac  motu  proprio”  of  §  2 
be  taken  copulatively.  A  spontaneous  and  free  confession  im¬ 
plies,  therefore,  that  the  subject  is  not  led  to  confess  through 
violence,  threats,  coaxing,  or  any  other  reason.50  Theoretically, 
a  simple  suggestion  or  persuasion  which  is  not  importunate  in  a 
particular  case,  is  not  excluded,  yet  prudence  dictates  the  bet¬ 
ter  course  of  abstinence  from  such  advice.51  When,  however, 
none  of  these  means  of  pressure  are  brought  to  bear  upon  the 
subject,  the  superior  can,  with  a  safe  conscience,  hear  the  pro¬ 
posed  confession  of  a  subject  provided  the  following  condition 
is  also  fulfilled. 

II.  Even  when  the  subject  is  perfectly  free  in  his  approach, 
the  superior  cannot  hear  his  confessions  habitually  without 
grave  reason.  The  words  per  modum  habitus  seem  to  imply  in 
this  case  a  permanent  method  of  action  which  becomes  a  cus¬ 
tom,  so  that  a  superior  can  be  considered  the  ordinary  or  almost 


49  Suarez,  De  Beligione,  tr.  VIII,  1.  II,  c.  15,  n.  5;  and  Bizzarri,  (2  ed.), 
p.  247,  read  in  this  decree  the  words  sponte  aut  motu  proprio ;  while 
Vermeersch,  De  Beligiosis,  II,  n.  222,  p.  470,  gives  the  words  sponte 
ae  proprio  motu,  which  is  the  wording  contained  in  the  <(Fontes  Juris 
Canonici,  of  Cardinal  Gasparri,  n.  177,  and  accepted  by  the 
Code  in  the  present  canon  under  consideration ;  Lehmkuhl,  Theol.  Mor. 
II,  p.  314,  note  1;  cf.  Larraona,  op.  cit.  p.  55. 
bo  Blat,  Commentarium  Textus  Codicis  Juris  Canonici,  1.  II,  pars,  II,  n. 
579. 

51  Blat,  loc.  cit.;  Larraona,  CpR,  I,  p.  54,  note  10,  p.  55,  56. 


42 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


the  ordinary  confessor  of  this  particular  subject.52  On  the  con¬ 
trary,  occasional  confession,  although  during  certain  periods, 
e.  g.,  in  temporary  and  extraordinary  temptations  or  in  time  of 
grave  sorrow,  etc.,  it  happens  often,  cannot  be  said  to  be  per 
modum  habitus.53  In  order  that  these  confessions  be  heard 
habitually  reasons  which  are  in  reality  grave  must  be  insisted 
upon.  Any  reasonable  cause  whatsoever  would  not  suffice. 
This  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  grave  causes  were  not  re¬ 
quired  by  Clement  VIII  in  his  decree  “Sanctissimus”54  so 
that  the  superior  could  hear  such  confessions  habitually  if  the 
subject  approached  him  freely  every  time.  The  decree  of  the 
Holy  Office,  however,  went  further  and  the  reception  of  occa¬ 
sional  confession  was  permitted  only  in  a  rare  case  when  he  felt 
burdened  in  conscience  to  hear  it.55  The  code  is  more  lenient 
than  the  decree  of  the  Holy  Office  and  yet  stricter  than  Clement 
VIII.  The  insertion  of  the  words  sine  gravi  causa  leads  to  the 
conclusion  that  this  was  not  done  without  reason  by  the  legisla¬ 
tor.  It  is  therefore  clear  that  the  gravity  of  the  reason  must  be 
insisted  upon  in  order  to  permit  superiors  to  hear  the  con¬ 
fessions  of  their  subjects  habitually.56  An  absolutely  grave 
reason,  which  would  be  sufficient  in  all  cases  is  not  required 
and  a  relatively  grave  cause  would  suffice  to  hear  the  confessions 
of  subjects. 

To  form  a  judgment  as  to  the  gravity  of  the  reason, 
therefore,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  the  circumstances  of 
the  person  and  the  conditions  of  the  religious  house.57  Such 
grave  reasons  would  be  the  lack  of  priests  in  the  house  ;58  too 
great  a  distance  from  another  suitable  confessor;  the  desire  to 
confess  according  to  the  prescriptions  of  the  constitutions  to  a 
priest  of  his  own  institute  even  though  other  confessors,  whether 


52  Blat,  loc.  cit. 

53  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  210;  Larraona,  op.  cit.  p.  50. 

54  FJC,  n.  177,  $  2. 

55  s.  B.  U.  Inquisitionis  ( S .  Officii ),  July  5,  1899;  cf.  Vermeersch,  De  Bel. 

II,  n.  232,  p.  496;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.,  n.  2057;  Bucceroni.  Casus  Con- 
scientiae,  II,  p.  79. 

56  cf.  Chelodi,  Jus  de  Personis,  n.  256,  p.  397,  note  1,  2;  Larraona,  CpR, 

I,  p.  56. 

57  Larraona,  loc.  cit. 

58  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.,  I,  n.  588. 


Confessors  of  Clerical  Institutes 


43 


secular  or  regulars  of  another  institute,  are  not  far  distant; 
a  serious  repugnance  to  confess  to  the  other  priests  of  the  same 
institute;59  scrupulosity;  the  serious  affirmation  of  penitents 
worthy  of  faith  that  they  get  some  special  spiritual  advantage 
from  confession  to  their  superiors.60 

It  might  seem  that  the  superior  of  the  religious  house 
does  not  so  greatly  differ  from  the  superior  of  a  semi¬ 
nary  or  secular  college  or  the  novice  master  that  the  same  rigor 
should  be  used  in  judging  the  gravity  of  the  cause  for  an  habit¬ 
ual  confession  to  the  religious  superior  as  in  permitting  an 
occasional  confession  to  the  master  of  novices  or  the  superior  of 
a  seminary  or  college  according  to  Canon  891.  But  it  is  evident 
from  the  reasons  for  the  law,  as  given  in  the  decree  of  the  Holy 
Office,61  that  the  gravity  of  the  reason  must  be  more  strictly 
estimated  in  colleges  and  religious  novitiates.62  Even  though, 
as  Larraona  says,  there  is  an  absolutely  or  relatively  grave 
cause  present,  habitual  confession  to  a  superior  can  be  more 
easily  permitted  if  it  is  clearly  evident  in  the  external  forum, 
(1)  that  the  subject  is  entirely  free,  (2)  that  there  does  not 
arise  therefrom,  due  to  the  subject’s  age,  character  or  condi¬ 
tion,  the  least  occasion  for  suspicion  of  greater  kindness  towards 
the  penitent  and  hence  of  the  envy  or  emulation  of  others  or 
murmuring  at  this  mixing  of  the  internal  and  external  forum.63 

Servatis  de  jure  servandis — The  rules  laid  down  in  the  Code 
for  the  administration  of  the  sacrament  of  penance  must  be 
observed  by  the  superior.  He  must  have  the  required  jurisdic¬ 
tion;  should  impose  suitable  penances;  is  bound  by  the  seal  of 
confession  and  cannot  use  confessional  knowledge  for  the  exter¬ 
nal  government  in  any  way,  etc.  (Can.  885-908). 64  The  super¬ 
ior  must  also  conform  to  the  prescriptions  of  a  particular  law 
on  these  matters.65 

59  Larraona,  CpR,  I,  p.  57 ;  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  210. 

60  Papi,  'Religious  in  Church  Law,  p.  50;  Larraona,  loc.  cit.;  Choupin,  op. 

cit.,  pp.  210,  211. 

61  S.  O.,  July  5,  1899;  ASS  XXXII,  64. 

62  Larraona,  CpR,  I,  p.  56. 

63  Larraona,  loc.  cit. 

64  Augustine,  A  Commentary  on  Canon  Law,  III,  p.  155. 

65  Blat,  op.  cit.,  II,  pars  II,  n.  579. 


44 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


The  Code  then  still  continues  the  exclusion  of  the  superior 
as  the  regular  confessor  of  his  own  religious,  as  was  first  intro¬ 
duced  by  Clement  VIII,  but  now  permits  habitual  confessions 
to  superiors  only  for  really  grave  reasons. 


CHAPTER  III. 


CONFESSORS  OF  LAY  INSTITUTES. 

Until  the  decree  Quemadmodum  of  Leo  XIII  in  the  year  of 
1890,  there  were  no  special  and  definite  regulations  for  confes¬ 
sors  of  male  lay  religious.  This  decree  put  them  on  a  par  with 
women  religious  in  regard  to  both  ordinary  and  extraordinary 
confessors  and  now  the  Code  grants  them  practically  the  same 
rights  as  female  religious. 

CANON  528. 

Etiam  in  laicalibus  virorum  religionibus  deputetur, 
ad  normam  Can.  874,  §  1,  875,  §  2,  confessarius  ordinarius 
et  extraordinarius ;  et  si  religiosus  aliquem  specialem  con- 
fessarium  expostulet,  ilium  Superior  concedat,  nullo  modo 
petitionis  rationem  inquirens  neque  id  aegre  se  ferre  de- 
monstrans. 

This  is  a  summary  of  paragraphs  four  and  seven  of  the  De¬ 
cree  Quemadmodum.1 

A  lay  institute  is  one  in  which  the  majority  are  not  priests. 
These  may  be  exempt  or  non-exempt.2 

A.  The  Number  of  These  Confessors. 

For  each  house  of  lay  male  religious  there  should  be  at 
least  one  ordinary  and  one  extraordinary  confessor  presented 
by  the  superior  or  the  local  Ordinary  accordingly  as  the  insti¬ 
tute  is  exempt  or  not.  The  number  of  ordinary  and  extra¬ 
ordinary  confessors  should  be  proportionate  to  the  number  of 
brothers  and  the  necessities  of  the  different  places.3 

1  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Dec.  17,  1890;  cf.  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1907)  n. 

1745;  Vermeersch,  De  Bel.  II,  n.  230. 

2  C.  488,  4°. 

3  Fanfani,  op.  cit.  n.  129;  Brandys,  op.  cit.  n.  152.  Blat,  op.  cit.,  1,  II, 

pars,  II,  n.  591. 


[45] 


46 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


It  is  left  to  the  Ordinary  or  superior  to  determine  the  num¬ 
ber  of  confessors  to  be  appointed  for  their  respective  houses.4 
Only  the,  novices  and  not  the  professed  members  of  the  commu¬ 
nity  are  obliged  to  present  themselves  to  the  extraordinary  con¬ 
fessor,  when  he  comes  to  hear  the  confession  of  the  house.  They 
are  to  get  at  least  his  blessing,  if  they  do  not  wish  to  confess.5 
The  superiors  should  see  to  it  that  all  their  subjects,  both  novices 
and  professed,  confess  weekly.6 

B.  Appointment  of  Confessors. 

(1)  In  exempt  institutes.  The  superior  proposes  the  con¬ 
fessor,  who  must  receive  jurisdiction  from  the  Ordinary  of  the 
place  in  which  the  religious  house  is  situated,  according  to  the 
prescriptions  of  canon  875,  §  2.  Such  superiors  have  onty 
dominative  and  not  jurisdictional  power,7  but  particular  privi¬ 
leges  in  this  matter  are  not  abrogated.8  The  local  Ordinary 
must  approve  the  presented  confessor.  The  right  of  presenta¬ 
tion  obliges  to  this  unless  the  one  presented  is  unfit. 

(2)  I,n  non-exempt  institutes.  The  Ordinary  of  the  place 
in  which  the  confessions  are  heard  is  to  grant  jurisdiction  to 
the  ordinary  and  extraordinary  confessor,  according  to  Canon 
874,  §  1. 

These  confessors,  whether  of  exempt  or  non-exempt  insti¬ 
tutes,  can  be  chosen  either  from  the  secular  or  religious  clergy 
and  must  obtain  jurisdiction  from  the  Ordinary  of  the  place 
where  the  confessions  are  to  be  heard.  Religious  priests,  how¬ 
ever,  should  not  use  this  delegation  without  at  least  the  pre¬ 
sumed  permission  of  their  superior.  The  use  of  this  delegation 
without  this  permission  would  not  affect  the  validity  of  the 
absolution  but  only  make  it  unlawful.  No  special  jurisdiction 
is  required  for  the  confessions  of  male  lay  religious  and  there- 

4  Vermeersch,  Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  589. 

5  C.  566,  $2,  4°;  cf.  Bastien,  loc.  cit .;  Vermeersch-Creusen,  loc.  cit.; 

Papi ,  op.  cit.,  p.  63;  Shafer,  Ordensrecht,  p.  121. 

6  Can.  595.  §  1;  3°;  Brandys,  op.  cit.,  n.  152. 

7  Schafer,  Ordensrecht,  p.  121. 

8  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  589. 


Confessors  of  Lay  Institutes 


47 


fore  they  can  confess  to  any  confessor  approved  for  the  faith¬ 
ful.  When  an  ordinary  confessor  has  been  designated  the  reli¬ 
gious  should  confess  to  him  habitually,  but  this  is  merely  for 
the  sake  of  the  external  order  and  does  not,  in  any  way,  in¬ 
fluence  the  validity  of  the  absolution.9 

C.  Faculties  for  Reserved  Cases. 

Since  even  exempt  lay  superiors  have  not  ordinary  juris¬ 
diction  in  the  internal  forum  they  cannot  make  reservations.10 
Therefore  the  confessors  who  are  appointed,  will  not  need  facul¬ 
ties  for  reservations  within  the  institute  as  is  required  in  Canon 
518,  §  1,  for  confessors  of  exempt  clerical  institutes.* 11  But  the 
prescriptions  of  the  code  for  the  absolution  of  the  faithful  must 
be  observed  by  confessors  of  non-exempt  institutes  in  regard  to 
episcopal  reservations  and  by  confessors  of  all  institutes  in  order 
to  absolve  from  reservations  by  common  law.12 

D.  Requested  Special  Confessor. 

Should  a  religious  ask  for  a  special  confessor,  the  superior 
must  grant  the  petition.  The  confessor  should,  of  course,  be 
chosen  from  those  having  the  usual  faculties  to  hear  confessions 
from  the  local  Ordinary.13  If  the  religious  requests  one  not 
having  faculties,  these  must  be  obtained  for  him.  This  con¬ 
fessor  can  be  requested  because  of  particular  circumstances, 
e.  g.,  sickness  (even  though  it  be  not  grave  as  in  Can.  523,  for 
religious  women),  but  the  canon  primarily  applies  to  the  con¬ 
fessor  to  whom  he  desires  to  confess  habitually  as  his  special 

9  Bastien,  Directoire  Canonique  a  VTJsage  des  Congregations  a  Voeux 
Simples,  (Troisieme  edition,  1923),  n.  350;  Papi,  Eeligious  in  Church 
Law,  p.  55,  f;  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  De  Eeligiosis,  n.  50;  Vermeersch- 
Creuscn,  Epit.  II,  n.  589;  Schafer,  Ordcnsreclit,  (ed.  1923)  p.  121, 
Leitner,  Handbuch  des  Katholischen  Kirchenrechts ,  ( dritte  Lief- 
erung,  Das  Ordensrecht) ,  p.  348;  Brandys,  Kirchliches  Eechtsbuch, 
n.  152. 

10  Can.  893,  $1. 

11  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  op.  cit.,  n.  50;  Cocchi,  op  cit.,  II  pars  II,  n.  47. 

12  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  131. 

13  Papi,  op.  cit.,  p.  63;  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  598;  Brandys, 

loc.  cit.;  Bastien,  op.  cit.,  n.  350. 


48 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


ordinary  confessor  as  granted  to  female  religious  for  their  peace 
of  conscience  and  greater  progress  in  the  spiritual  life.14  The 
canon  does  not  speak  of  the  motive  necessary  to  confess  habit¬ 
ually  but  by  analogy  with  Can.  519  one  can  presuppose  this  to 
be  tranquillity  of  conscience,  e.  g.,  if  he  has  great  confidence 
in  the  virtue  and  learning  of  the  confessor ;  if  he  would 
receive  better  direction  and  greater  spiritual  profit  or  if  he 
finds  it  easier  to  confess  to  him. 

The  superior  cannot  inquire  into  the  motive  of  the  request 
or  in  any  way  show  displeasure  at  it.  If  abuses  are  evident 
they  should  be  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  ordinary  who 
can  intervene  directly.15 

This  habitual  special  confessor  should  be  readily  granted 
by  the  superior  to  those  brothers  who  ask  for  him.16 

It  is  to  be  added,  however,  that  notwithstanding  the  ap¬ 
pointment  of  confessors  for  the  community,  the  members  of  lay 
institutes  of  men,  enjoy  the  privilege  of  confessing  for  the  peace 
of  their  conscience  to  any  priest  who  has  the  ordinary  faculties 
of  the  diocese,  and  the  permission  of  the  superior  is  not  nec¬ 
essary  as  will  be  explained  in  a  subsequent  chapter  on  Canon 
519.  A  fuller  explanation  of  the  prescriptions  of  law  on  the 
ordinary  and  extraordinary  confessor  will  be  found  in  the  chap¬ 
ters  on  the  ordinary  and  extraordinary  confessors  of  women 
religious.  (Can.  520,  §  1,  521,  §  1). 

14  Can.  520  $2;  Blat.  op.  cit.,  II  pars  I,  n.  590. 

15  Bastien,  loc.  cit. 

16  Yermeersch-Creusen,  loc.  cit. 


CHAPTER  IV. 


CONFESSORS  OF  NOVICES. 

I.  The  Ordinary  Confessor. 

CANON  566. 

§  2.  In  religionibus  virorum,  salvo  praescripto  Can. 

519: 

1°  Pro  novitiorum  numero  unus  vel  plures  habeantur 
ordinarii  oonfessarii,  salvo  praescripto  Can.  891; 

Like  religious,  novices  can  for  the  peace  of  their  conscience 
confess  to  priests  approved  by  the  local  ordinary,  in  virtue  of 
Canon  519.  This  gives  them  no  right  to  go  out  for  that  pur¬ 
pose,  but  if  a  priest  with  such  faculties  visits  the  convent,  they 
can  go  to  confession  to  him  there. 

These  prescriptions  also  apply  to  novices  of  lay  brothers, 
but  not  students  after  first  tonsure,  though  they  remain  under 
the  charge  of  a  master.1 

The  ordinary  confessor  is  to  hear  the  confessions  of  all 
those  novices  living  in  the  novitiate.2  Where  there  are  few 
novices  it  is  the  mind  of  the  legislator  that  only  one  ordinary 
confessor  be  appointed.  The  computation  of  the  number  which 
would  demand  more  is  left  to  the  free  will  of  the  superior. 
Twenty  seems  to  suffice  and  sixty  to  demand  that  more  than 
one  be  appointed.  In  such  conditions  the  superior  can  licitly 
appoint  more  than  two.3 

A.  In  Clerical  Institutes. 

Both  the  confessors  appointed  for  them  by  their  superiors 
and  also  confessors  having  diocesan  faculties  can  validly  hear 

1  Fanfani,  op.  cit.  n.  214.  This  is  a  Dominican  custom. 

2  Can.  520,  §  1;  cf.  Schafer,  Orclensrecht,  p.  184;  Blat,  II,  pars  II,  n.  635. 

Fanfani,  De  Jure  Beligiosorum,  n.  213. 

3  Vcrmeersch'-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  663;  Bastien,  Dircctoire  Canonique, 

n,  352, 


[49] 


50 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


the  confessions  of  the  novices.4  In  exempt  clerical  institutes  it 
is  the  regular  prelate  who  has  the  right  and  power  to  appoint 
and  delegate  jurisdiction  to  the  confessors  of  his  novices.5 

CANON  566. 

§  2,  2°.  Confessarii  ordinarii,  si  agatur  de  religion© 
clericali,  in  ipsa  novitiatus  domo  commorentur; 

The  ordinary  confessors  for  the  novitiates  of  clerical  in¬ 
stitutes  shall  live  in  the  novitiate  house  itself. 

The  novice  master  before  the  Code  had  the  exclusive  right 
and  duty  to  hear  the  confessions  of  all  the  novices,  but  this  has 
been  completely  changed  to  a  prohibition. 

CANON  891. 

Magister  novitionim  eiusque  socius,  Superior  Sem- 
inarii  collegiive  sacramentales  confessiones  suorum  alum- 
norum  secum  in  eadem  domo  commorantium  ne  audiant, 
nisi  alumni  ex  gravi  et  urgenti  causa  in  casibus  parti- 
cularibus  sponte  id  petant. 

The  master  of  novices  and  his  assistant  must  not  hear  the 
confessions  of  their  subjects  living  in  the  same  house,  unless 
the  subjects  for  a  grave  and  urgent  reason  in  particular  cases 
spontaneously  request  it. 

This  refers  to  the  novice  master  and  his  assistant  and  not 
to  others  in  the  religious  institute.  These  words  must  be  taken 
taxatively.  Therefore  this  prohibition  does  not  include  the 
spiritual  director  of  the  professed6  who,  according  to  the  com¬ 
mon  practice,  is  appointed  in  many  clerical  institutes.  For 
the  spiritual  director  does  not  exercise  disciplinary  power  as 
is  required  for  the  external  regime  of  the  novitiate.7 

The  canon  does  not  forbid  the  master  of  novices  to  hear 
confessions  of  the  professed  or  others  who  are  not  novices  nor 

4  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  588,  663;  Chelodi,  Jus  de  Personis, 

n.  269. 

5  Can.  875,  $1;  Schafer,  Ordensrecht,  p.  185. 

o  Praefectus  sen  Magister  Spiritus,  cf,  can,  588, 

7  Can.  561. 


Confessors  of  Novices 


51 


to  novices  who  are  not  subject  to  him.  Despite  the  prohibition 
the  confessions  of  novices  heard  by  the  novice  master  would  be 
valid  and  even  licit  if  the  following  conditions  are  fulfilled. 

(1)  A  spontaneous  request  by  the  subject. — Therefore,  the 
novice  master  could  not  by  force,  threats  or  importunate  per¬ 
suasion  or  anything  of  the  kind,  induce  a  novice  to  confess  to 
him.8 

(2)  A  grave  and  urgent  cause ,  e.  g.,  for  his  tranquillity 
of  conscience ;  the  necessity  of  absolution  from  a  grave  sin  or 
even  the  desire  to  rightly  dispose  himself  for  Communion,  in 
the  latter  case  the  novice  could  not  do  this  when  he  can  easily 
find  another  to  whom  he  can  tell  his  scruples  and  sins.9  Fan- 
fani  states  that  even  the  desire  of  receiving  special  counsel  and 
other  reasons  of  a  like  nature  would  suffice.10 

(3)  This  can  be  done,  however,  only  in  particular  cases 
when  the  subject  asks  it  spontaneously  and  therefore  not  habit¬ 
ually,  since  an  urgent  cause  is  required,  which  presupposes 
immediate  necessity.  If  on  one  or  another  occasion  the  ordinary 
or  extraordinary  confessor  is  absent  it  would  seem  to  constitute 
a  particular  case.* 11  These  causes  must  be  more  strictly  esti¬ 
mated  under  this  canon  than  in  the  use  of  Can.  518,  §  2, 12  in 
virtue  of  which  a  religious  might  confess  to  his  superior.13 

Under  no  circumstances  may  the  novice  master  become  the 
regular  confessor  of  his  novices,  for  that  is  directly  contrary  to 
the  spirit  and  letter  of  the  law,  “Certum  est,  quocl  is  commit- 
tit  in  legem,  qui,  leg  is*  verba  complectens,  contra  legis  nititur 
volwntatem,’ ’ 14  for  Canon  891  states  explicitly,  “nisi  ex  gravi 
et  ur genii  causa  in  casibus  p artic id aribus.”1 5 


8  Cf.  can.  518. 

9  Vcrmeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  II,  n.  170. 

10  Fanfani,  op.  cit.  n.  214. 

11  Fanfani,  loc.  cit.  Vermeersch-Creusen,  loc.  cit. 
i‘2  Chelodi,  Jus  de  Personis,  n.  269. 

18  Larraona,  CpR,  I,  p.  56. 

14  R.  J.  in  VI0,  Reg.  88. 

J5  Clioupin,  L’Etat  Beligieux ,  p.  211. 


52 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


B.  In  Lay  Institutes. 

In  these  institutes,  whether  exempt  or  not,  the  local  ordi¬ 
nary  gives  the  jurisdiction  to  the  confessor.  In  those  institutes 
subject  to  him  he  selects  the  confessor  and  makes  the  appoint¬ 
ment,  but  in  exempt  lay  institutes  the  superior  presents  the 
confessor  to  the  Ordinary.16 

CANON  566. 

§  2,  2°.  Confessarii  ordinarii,  si  agatur  de  religion© 
.  .  .  laicali,  saltern  frequenter  ad  do-mum  novitiatus  ac- 
cedant,  novitiorum  confessiones  audituri; 

The  novices  should  have  the  opportunity  of  going  to  con¬ 
fession  frequently  and  therefore  this  canon  requires  that  the 
ordinary  confessors  of  the  novices  of  lay  institutes  should,  at 
the  least,  go  to  the  novitiate  frequently  to  hear  the  confessions 
of  the  novices.  This  certainly  implies  that  he  should  visit  the 
novitiate  for  this  purpose  at  least  once  a  week17  and,  as  most 
authors  hold,  even  two  or  three  times  a  week.18 

The  necessity  of  frequent  approach  can  also  be  a  cause 
for  appointing  more  confessors  than  the  number  of  novices  itself 
might  warrant.  Thus,  the  appointed  confessors  could  be  con¬ 
tent  with  weekly  approach  on  different  days.19  This  applies,  of 
course,  only  to  lay  institutes,  clerical  institutes,  the  confessors 
live  in  the  community,  and  therefore  such  questions  as  to  visits 
cannot  arise. 

% 

II.  Extraordinary  Confessor. 

CANON  566. 

§  2,  4°.  Quater  saltern  in  anno  detur  novitiis  confes- 
sarius  extraordinarius,  ad  quem  omnes  accedant  saltern 
benedictionem  recepturi. 

16  Can.  875,  $2;  Cf.  Bastien,  Directoire,  Ccinonique,  n.  352;  Brandys, 

Kirchliches  Eechtsbuch,  n.  41.  Leitner,  Eandbuch  ( Dritte  Lieferung ) 

p.  48;  cf.  p. 

17  Can.  595,  $1,  3°;  Brandys,  Kirchliches  Kechtsbuch ,  n.  42. 

18  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  663;  Arregui,  Summarium  Theologiae 

Moralis  n.  604. 

19  Yermeersch,  loc.  cit. 


Confessors  of  Novices  53 

At  least  four  times  in  the  year,  the  novices  are  to  be  given 
an  extraordinary  confessor  to  whom  all  are  to  present  them¬ 
selves  at  least  to  receive  his  blessing.  This  is  done  so  that  no 
talk  may  arise  as  to  those  who  would  otherwise  approach  him 
to  confess.  It  is  not  required  that  the  same  confessor  go  four 
times  a  year.  Therefore,  at  the  time  of  retreat  the  retreat 
master  could  be  the  extraordinary  confessor,  provided  all  go  to 
him,  whether  to  confess  or  only  to  receive  his  blessing.  Of 
course  there  is  no  obligation  of  confessing  to  the  extraordinary 
confessor.20 

It  is  not  required  that  the  confessors  of  the  novices  be 
distinct  from  those  of  the  professed. 

III.  Supplementary  Confessors. 

CANON  566. 

§2,  3°.  Praeter  confessarios  ordinarios,  designentur 
aliqui  confessarii,  quos  novitii  in  casibus  particularibus 
adire  libere  possint,  nec  Magister  aegre  id  se  ferre  demon- 
stret; 

Besides  the  ordinary  confessors,  other  confessors  must  be 
designated  to  whom  in  particular  cases  the  novices  may  freely 
have  recourse.  The  Master  of  novices  may  not  manifest  any 
displeasure,  if  a  novice  approaches  one  of  these  confessors. 
Free  approach  can  either  be  had  by  permitting  the  novice  to  go 
to  the  confessor  or,  as  is  more  comformable,  to  regular  observ¬ 
ance,  to  see  to  it  that  the  confessor  requested  by  novice,  comes 
to  him  in  the  customary  place  for  confessions  of  novices.21 

In  clerical  institutes  they  can  be  appointed  from  those  stay¬ 
ing  in  the  house  and  can  be  approached  b^  the  novices  or  called 
by  the  novice  master.22 


20  Vermeersch-Creusen,  loc.  cit.;  Blat,  ibid;  Brandys,  Kirchliches  Eechts- 

buch,  n.  41;  cf.  Treatment  on  Ordinary  and  Extraordinary  confessors 
of  women.  The  same  principles  apply. 

21  Fanfani  op.  cit.  n.  213;  Bastien,  op  cit.  n.  353. 

22  Blat,  LL,  pars  II,  p.  622. 


54 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


These  confessors  are  not  ordered  to  go  to  the  house  even 
frequently.  However,  approach  to  them  should  not  be  too  diffi¬ 
cult  lest  the  law  be  evaded.23 

The  novices  are  to  approach  these  confessors  only  in  'parti¬ 
cular  cases,  i.  e.,  as  individuals,  and  not  habitually.24 


23  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  663. 

24  cf.  Commentary  on  Canon  521,  §  2,  p. 


CHAPTER  V. 


CONFESSORS  FOR  PEACE  OF  CONSCIENCE. 

Although  some  religious  orders  had  the  privilege  of  con¬ 
fessing  outside  of  their  order,  it  was  left  to  Pius  X  to  extend 
this  to  all  male  religious.  On  February  8,  1913,  this  Supreme 
Pontiff  granted  to  all  confessors,  approved  by  the  Ordinary  of 
Rome,  the  faculty  of  hearing  the  confessions  of  and  of  absolv¬ 
ing  religious  men  of  any  institute  whatsoever,  who  came  to 
them,  without  asking  permission  of  their  respective  superiors.1 
This  faculty  was  extended  to  all  confessors  in  the  world  on 
August  5th  of  the  same  year.2  These  confessors  had  power  to 
absolve  from  all  sins  no  matter  how  reserved  in  the  order ; 
their  faculties  coming  direct  from  the  Pope.  This  was  a  very 
great  boon  for  religious  men3  and  formed  the  basis  for  our 
present  canon. 

CANON  519. 

Firmis  constitutionibus  quae  oonfessionem  statis 
temporibus  praecipiunt  vel  suadent  apud  determinates 
confessarios  peragendam,  si  religiosus,  etiam  exemptus, 
ad  suae  conscientiae  quietem,  confessarium  adeat  ab  Or- 
dinario  loci  approbatum,  etsi  inter  designatos  non  recen- 
situm,  confessio,  revocato  quolibet  contrario  privilegio, 
valida  et  licita  est;  et  confessarius  potest  religiosum  ab- 
solvere  etiam  a  peccatis  et  censuris  in  religione  reservatis. 

The  Subjects  Who  Can  Use  This  Canon.  This  faculty  is 
extended  directly  by  the  canon  to  all  religious  men  without  ex¬ 
ception,  of  any  order,  congregation  or  institute  whatsoever ; 
whether  religious  of  solemn  vows  or  simple ;  whether  exempt  or 

1  Vermeersch,  Per.  VII,  p.  (24) ;  This  communication  was  not  published 

in  the  official  ‘ 1  Acta  Apostolicae  Sedis  ’  ’  but  made  known  to  the 

confessors  of  the  City  by  printed  card.  cf.  Vermeersch,  ibid.,  p.  179. 

2  S.  C.  De  Pel.,  AAS,  V,  431;  cf.  Vermeersch,  op.  cit.,  p.  173;  Lehmkuhl, 

Theol.  Mor.  II,  n.  514;  Choupin,  L’Etat  Religieux,  p.  212. 

3  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  214. 


[55] 


56 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


not ;  whether  priests,  monks  or  brothers,  for  those  are  religious 
who  take  vows  in  any  institutes.4  Novices  are  not  religious 
properly  so-called,  for  they  do  not  take  vows,  hut  this  privilege 
extends  to  them  also,  no  matter  what  their  order  or  congrega¬ 
tion.5  Moreover,  the  Code  grants  the  same  right  to  pious  asso¬ 
ciations  or  societies  6  whose  members  imitate  the  manner  of  life 
of  religious  by  living  in  community  under  the  government  of 
superiors  and  according  to  approved  constitutions,  but  without 
being  bound  by  the  usual  three  vows.  They  are  not  properly  a 
religious  institute  and  their  members  cannot  be  properly  desig¬ 
nated  by  the  term  religious.  Such  a  society  may  be  clerical 
or  lay,  pontifical  or  diocesan.7 

The  Code  expressly  mentions  the  exempt  religious  as  being 
the  recipients  of  this  privilege.  They  alone  are  free  from  epis¬ 
copal  jurisdiction.  Therefore,  it  is  only  about  these  religious 
that  difficulties  can  arise  in  regard  to  confession  to  a  priest 
approved  by  the  local  Ordinary.  It  was  also  the  common  inter¬ 
pretation  of  authors  before  the  Code  that  they  were  included 
in  this  privilege.8 

Without  prejudice  to  the  constitutions — Father  Papi9 
seems  to  be  wrong  in  his  interpretation  of  this  part  of  the 
canon,  when  he  states  that  the  constitutions  must  be  observed 
whenever  the  “peace  of  conscience’ ’  does  not  require  the  use  of 
this  faculty.  Since  most  authors  hold  that  sufficient  motive  for 
peace  of  conscience  is  had  in  every  serious  confession,  religious 
could,  in  virtue  of  this  view,  habitually  avoid  confession  to  the 
appointed  confessors.  That,  however,  is  foreign  to  the  mind  of 
the  legislator.  The  true  meaning  is,  that  the  constitutions  pre- 

4  Can.  488,  In  canonibus  qui  sequuntur,  veniunt  nomine :  7°.  Beligiosorum, 

qui  vota  nuncupantur  in  aliqua  religione.  .  .  . 

5  Can.  566  $2;  S.  C.  De  Rel.  Boma  et  Aliarum,  ad  1;  May  3,  1914; 

AAS,  VI,  232;  cf.  Chelodi,  Jus  De  Fersonis,  n.  256;  Ir.  Ecc.  Bee. 

(1914)  IV  p.  103;  Leitner,  Handbuch,  ( Dritte  Lieferung ),  p.  350. 

6  Can.  675,  Begimen  determinatur  in  uniuscuiusque  societatis  constitu- 

tionibus;  sed  in  omnibus  serventur,  congrua  congruis  referendo,  can. 

499-530. 

7  Can.  673,  §  1. 

8  Vermeersch,  Per.  VII,  p.  (30) ;  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  218. 

9  Beligious  in  Church  Law,  p.  51;  also  The  Government  of  Beligious  Com¬ 

munities,  p.  130. 


Confessors  of  Novices 


57 


scribing  confessions  at  definite  times  and  to  determined  con¬ 
fessors,  still  remain  in  force  despite  the  fact  that  religious  can 
go  at  any  time  to  the  confessor  of  Canon  519  for  their  peace  of 
conscience.10  In  fact  this  canon  strengthens  the  constitutions 
in  these  prescriptions  and  the  use  of  the  faculty  of  going  to 
these  confessors  does  not  dispense  from  the  precept  of  the 
constitutions.* 11  The  unity  of  direction  is  not  only  useful  but 
necessary,  especially  for  the  younger  religious  and  those  who 
are  subject  to  temptations  so  that  unless  they  are  sustained  and 
directed  by  the  prudent  hand  of  a  constant  spiritual  physician 
they  might  lose  perseverance  in  virtue.12  It  is  evident  from 
the  history  of  the  discipline  that  the  constitutions  were  to  be 
observed  in  this  matter  despite  the  fact  that  a  religious  could 
confess  outside  the  order.  In  the  Code  this  is  summarized  in  the 
words  firmis  cons  tit  iitioni  b  us,  which  prescribe  confessions  at 
definite  times  and  to  determined  confessors.  There  is  nothing 
to  prevent  a  religious  from  going  besides  to  another  confessor 
for  tha  peace  of  his  conscience. 

This  view  is  supported  by  almost  all  commentators.18 

Occasional  confessions  in  virtue  of  Canon  519  beyond  the 
prescription  of  confession  at  determined  periods,  can  be  per¬ 
mitted  as  exceptions.  But  Canon  519  in  no  way  supposes  that 
the  confessor  to  whom  the  religious  approaches  of  his  free  will 
is  to  be  converted  into  the  special  ordinary  confessor  of  that 
religious,14  without  the  permission  of  superior.15 

10  Fanfani,  De  Jure  Beligiosorum,  n.  127,  dubium,  II;  Vermeersch- 

Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  588. 

11  Goyeneche,  CpR.  (1924)  V,  p.  28  ff. 

12  Genicot,  Theol.  Mor.,  II,  n.  336. 

13  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  De  Beligiosis,  n.  48;  Creusen,  Beligieux  et  Be- 

ligieuses  (1924),  n.  89,  p.  76;  Jansen,  Ordensrecht,  p.  150;  Ver- 
meersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  588;  Augustine,  A  Commentary  on  Canon 
Law,  III,  p.  157 ;  Blat,  Commentarium  Textus  C.  I.  C.,  I  pars  II, 
n.  580;  Choupin,  L’Etat  Beligieux,  p.  210;  Chelodi,  Jus  de 
Personis,  n.  256;  Goyeneche,  CpR.  Ill,  78-81;  V,  28-29;  Leitner, 
Ilandbuch  des  Katholischen  Kirchenrechts,  p.  249. 

14  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  588;  Genicot,  Theol.  Mor.  II,  n.  336. 

15  Creusen,  Beligieux  et  Beligieuses,  n.  89;  Cocchi,  op  cit.,  II,  pars  II, 

n.  36. 


58 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


Religious  superiors  can  and  should  urge  the  observance  of 
the  prescriptions  for  regular  confessions  to  determine  confessors 
since  this  is  their  duty  by  reason  of  Canon  595,  §  1,  3°. 16 

The  religious  must  approach  the  confessor.  The  word  adeat 
implies  that  the  confession  made  to  a  confessor  approved  by  the 
local  ordinary,  will  be  valid  and  licit  if  the  religious  takes  the 
initiative,  but  the  Code  does  not  attempt  to  define  what  con¬ 
stitutes  such  an  approach.  His  approach  can  take  place  in 
many  ways,  e.  g.,  either  within  or  outside  of  the  house,  if  the 
confessor  is  directly  sought  when  the  occasion  offers.  Of  course 
the  word  “adeat”  gives  the  religious  no  right  to  summon  the 
confessor,17  but  even  if  this  should  be  done  the  confession  would 
be  valid  since  no  peculiar  jurisdiction  is  required  for  the  con¬ 
fessions  of  religious  men  as  for  female  religious.  Neither  can 
a  religious  in  virtue  of  this  canon  exact  that  the  superior  should 
call  such  a  confessor  ;18  nor  disregard  the  observances  of  the 
institute ;  nor  demand  permission  to  go  out ;  nor  leave  the  house 
for  this  purpose,  without  such  permission,  when  the  consti¬ 
tutions  or  customs  prescribe  that  he  ask  it.19  The  violation 
of  the  preceptive  rule  of  not  going  out  would  not  render  the 
confession  illicit.20 

The  superior,  then,  is  not  bound  to  accede  to  the  request  to 
go  out  especially  if  the  religious  is  unwilling  to  tell  the  motive, 
i.  e.,  for  confession.  Those  religious  observing  the  papal  cloister 
cannot  be  given  permission  to  go  out.  The  superior  of  other 
religious  may  grant  it  for  this  reason  alone.21 

If,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is  no  abuse,  the  superior  would 
act  against  the  intention  of  the  Church  by  arbitrarily  prohibit¬ 
ing  religious  to  go  out  for  the  sake  of  confession,  especially  if 
they  should  have  the  opportunity  of  going  out  either  by  reason 

16  Goyenche,  CpR  (1922)  III,  p.  81. 

17  cl',  explanation  of  Canon  522. 

18  Fanfani,  loc.  cit.;  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  588;  Creusen,  Re- 

ligieux  et  Religieuses,  n.  89. 

19  Papi,  op.  cit.,  p.  51. 

20  Chelodi,  Jus  Personale,  n.  256. 

21  Reply  of  S.  C.  De  Rel.  Dec.  1,  1921  to  the  Bishop  of  Innsbruck; 

Hilling,  C.  I.  C.  Interpretatio,  p.  39. 


Confessors  of  Novices 


59 


of  their  ministry  or  some  other  legitimate  cause  permitted  by 
the  rules  and  constitutions.22  The  spiritual  welfare  of  the  indi¬ 
vidual  must  not  be  jeopardized.23 

When  there  is  a  confessor  approved  by  the  local  ordinary 
in  the  house  or  if  the  religious  is  outside  of  the  house  for  any 
reason  whatsoever,  he  can,  without  the  permission  of  the  super¬ 
ior  and  unknown  to  him,  confess  to  such  a  confessor,24  and  need 
not  mention  the  fact  to  the  superior.25  The  confessor  is  in  no 
way  obliged  to  ask  the  penitent  if  he  has  permission,  or  obtain 
this  himself  from  the  superior ;  or  notify  the  latter ;  or  question 
the  religious  as  to  his  motive  of  approach,  i.  e.,  whether  he 
comes  for  peace  of  conscience  or  not.26 

The  motive 27 — The  religious  should  approach  such  a  con¬ 
fessor  for  the  peace  of  his  conscience.  These  words  do  not  im¬ 
ply  that  a  special  cause  is  necessary  for  the  validity  and  liceity 
of  such  a  confession  so  that  if  there  were  not  some  disquietude 
of  conscience  it  would  be  unlawful.  This  can  be  deduced  from 
the  following  reasons : 

I.  This  is  a  privilege  to  religious  and  should  be  inter¬ 
preted  widely  according  to  the  axioms  of  law,  Quum  beneficia 
principum  sint  inter  pretanda  largissime28  and  Quum  in  bene- 
ficiis  plenissima  sit  interpretation  and  the  general  rule  of  law 
odia  restringi,  et  favores  convenit  ampliari .30 

II.  Any  confession  is  valid  which  is  made  seriously,  for 
any  serious  confession  truly  tends  to  quiet  the  conscience.31  The 


22  Fanfani,  op.  cit.  n.  127;  Vermeersch,  loc.  cit .;  CpR,  (1922)  III,  p.  81. 

23  Papi,  loc.  cit. 

24  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  127.  cf.  Vermeersch-Creusen,  loc.  cit;  Cocchi,  op. 

cit.,  II,  pars  II,  n.  36. 

25  Creusen,  op.  cit.  n.  89. 

26  ef.  Leitner,  op.  cit.  p.  350. 

27  cf.  Treatment  on  Can.  522. 

28  c.  16,  X,  de  privilegiis,  V,  40. 

29  c.  22,  X,  de  privilegiis,  V.  33;  cf.  Wernz,  Jus  Decretalium,  I,  n.  161 

30  R.  J.,  in  vi°.  Reg.  15. 

31  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  588;  Fanfani,  De  Jure  Beligiosorum,  n. 

127,  calls  this  opinion  the  more  probable;  Cocchi,  op.  cit.,  II,  pars 
II,  n.  36.  Creusen;  Beligieux  et  Beligieuses,  n.  89. 


60  Confessors  of  Male  Religious 

serious  choice  of  a  confessor  is  directed  to  a  greater  peace  of 
conscience.32 

III.  The  intention  of  the  legislator  is  to  promote  peace  of 
conscience  and  it  is  reasonable  to  presume  that  he  would  not 
make  this  peace  of  conscience  a  condition  necessary  for  the 
validity  of  the  confession33  lest  it  give  rise  to  scruples.34  This 
is  confirmed  by  the  decree  of  Pius  X,  ‘ 1  In  audientia,  ’  ’ 35  which 
made  no  mention  of  this  condition.36  It  would,  moreover,  be 
very  difficult  in  individual  cases  to  judge  whether  the  confession 
for  the  peace  of  conscience  would  be  useful  or  not  and  instead 
of  facilitating  approach  the  consciences  of  the  religious  by  the 
faculty  of  Canon  519  would  be  thrown  into  more  and  greater 
difficulties  in  contravention  of  the  evident  purpose  of  the  legis¬ 
lator  in  granting  this  privilege.37 

This  confession  would  not  only  be  valid  but  even  licit 
according  to  the  canon.  This  phrase  must  be  taken  in  conjunc¬ 
tion  with  the  first  words  of  the  canon  firmis  constitutionibus, 
etc.,  and,  therefore,  confessions  made  in  virtue  of  Canon  519 
which  do  not  violate  the  prescriptions  of  the  constitutions  in 
regard  to  confessions  at  definite  times  and  to  determined  per¬ 
sons  are  not  only  valid  but  lawful.38  The  number  of  times  that 
a  religious  may  make  use  of  this  faculty  is  not  determined  by 
thd  Code,  but  simply  and  solely  by  his  state  of  conscience.39 

The  confessor.  This  canon,  as  we  have  said  being  a  privi¬ 
lege,  should  receive  a  wide  interpretation.  The  law  does  not 
determine  the  branch  of  the  clergy,  whether  religious  or  secular, 
nor  the  rite  from  which  the  confessor  is  to  be  chosen  and  there¬ 
fore  ubi  lex  non  distinquit  nee  nos  distinguere  deb  emus. 40  The 
Code  in  Canon  519  directly  and  formally  gives  the  faculty  to 

32  Vermeersch-Creusen,  ibid. 

33  Papi,  Eeligious  in  Church  Law ,  p.  51. 

34  Vermeersch-Creusen,  loc.  cit. 

35  s.  C.  De  Bel.  Aug.  5,  1913;  AAS,  V,  431;  cf.  Vermeersch,  Per.  VII,  p. 

(24)  ;  n.  702,  p.  173. 

30  Chelodi,  Jus  de  Personis,  n.  256. 

37  Fanfani,  op.  cit.  n.  127,  dubium,  I. 

38  Vermeersch-Creusen,  loc.  cit. 

39  Augustine,  op.  cit.,  Ill,  p.  157. 

40  Choupin,  L’Etat  Eeligieux,  p.  214. 


Confessors  of  Novices 


61 


absolve  religious  men  to  all  confessors,  whether  secular  or  reli¬ 
gious,  approved  for  confessions  by  the  local  Ordinary,  accord¬ 
ing  to  Canons  877  and  879.41 

The  right  to  confess  to  priests  of  another  rite  for  the  peace 
of  conscience  was  admitted  before  the  Code  42  and  is  now  con¬ 
tained  in  Canon  905.  Thus  religious  can  confess  to  priests  of 
Mother  rites  which  remain  in  union  with  the  Holy  See.  Therefore, 
a  Basilian  monk  could  confess,  for  instance,  in  New  York,  to  a 
secular  or  religious  priest  of  the  Latin  rite  if  he  is  approved 
by  the  Archbishop  of  New  York,  and  so  also  could  an  American 
Benedictine  monk  confess  to  a  Greek-Ruthenian  priest  in  Phila¬ 
delphia  if  the  latter  is  approved  by  the  proper  local  Ordinary, 
the  Greek-Ruthenian  Bishop.43 

Confessor  Approved  by  the  Local  Ordinary.  To  exercise 
this  faculty  approbation  by  the  local  Ordinary  is  required  and 
that  alone  suffices,  no  special  approbation  for  religious  being 
necessary.44  Approbation  implies  not  only  recommendation  but 
actual  possession  of  faculties.  Approval  for  confession  and 
granting  of  faculties  are  one  and  the  same  in  the  Code  40  which 
requires  only  the  presumed  permission  of  the  superior  to  exer¬ 
cise  faculties  granted  by  the  local  ordinary.46 

The  local  ordinary,  who  can  approve  a  confessor,  may  be 
(unless  expressly  excepted)  besides  the  Pope,  all  those  who  rule 
or  govern  a  diocese  or  territory  equal  to  a  diocese.  Such  are 
residential  Bishops  for  their  own  territory,  Abbots  or  Prelates 
Nullius,  (i.  e.,  having  jurisdiction  over  some  territory,  but  not 


41  Cocchi,  op.  cit.,  II,  pars  II,  n.  36;  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  215. 

42  S.  C.  De  Eel.,  Eoma  et  Aliarum,  May  3,  1914,  AAS  VI,  232;  An  de- 

cretum  sacrae  Congregation is  de  Beligiosis,  die  5  Augusti  1913,  com- 
prehandat  etiam  confessiones  quas  religiosi  ritus  Latini  faciunt  apud 
confessarios  ritus  Orientalis  et  vicissim ?  Besp.  Affirmative;  cf.  Ver- 
meersch,  Per.  VIII,  n.  15 ;  Chelodi,  op.  cit.,  n.  256,  p.  397  note  3 ; 
CpR,  III,  p.  80. 

43  Cf.  Can.  905,  Can.  1 ;  Leitner,  op.  cit.  p.  350 ;  Blat,  III,  pars  I,  n.  234. 

44  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  214. 

45  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  op.  cit.  n.  49. 

4®  Can.  874,  $  1. 


62 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


necessarily  a  diocese)47  and  their  Vicar  General;  Administrators, 
Vicars  and  Prefects  Apostolic  and  likewise  Vicar  Capitulars 
and  Administrators  during  the  vacancy  of  the  see  whether  they 
are  such  under  common  law  or  according  to  approved  constitu¬ 
tions.48  This  canon  settles  disputes  which  had  arisen  in  regard 
to  the  words  of  the  Decree  of  August  5,  1913,  “  confessarios  a 
locorum  Ordinariis  approbatis.”  49  Some  authors  held  that  ap¬ 
probation  was  required  of  the  ordinary  of  the  place  in  which  the 
confessions  were  to  be  heard.  Others  contended  that  the  appro¬ 
bation  of  any  local  Ordinary  whatsoever,  was  sufficient  and 
therefore  that  a  priest  approved  by  any  local  Ordinary  could 
hear  the  confessions  of  any  male  religious  anywhere.50  The 
present  law,  however,  demands  that  the  approbation  come  from 
the  ordinary  of  the  place  in  which  the  confessions  are  to  be 
heard.51 

This  confessor  need  only  be  approved  to  hear  the  con¬ 
fessions  of  men  and  not  all  the  faithful  as  is  the  common  cus¬ 
tom  in  our  country.52  In  other  countries  it  is  not  a  rare  thing 
that  priests  receive  faculties  for  the  confessions  of  men  only, 
e.  g.,  in  Rome,  and  certain  dioceses  of  Italy  and  Spain  and, 
according  to  Augustine,  even  in  our  own  State  of  Louisiana.03 
This  canon  speaks  expressly  of  approbation  by  the  ordinary. 
Since  Cardinals,  Canons  Penitentiary  and  Pastors  are  not, 
strictly  speaking,  confessors  approved  by  the  ordinary  but  ipso 
jure  enjoy  ordinary  jurisdiction  in  the  forum  of  conscience, 
it  might  seem  that  they  could  not  act  in  virtue  of  Can.  519. 
Cardinals,  however,  have,  from  the  time  of  their  promotion 
in  consistory,  the  faculty  of  hearing  confessions  of  all  religious 

47  Can.  198,  $  $  1,  2.  Can.  199,  §  1;  Cf.  Wernz-Vidal,  Jus  Canonicum,  II, 

n.  367;  Augustine,  op.  cit.,  II,  p.  173  ff;  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  215. 

48  Can.  432,  §  3. 

49  S.  C.  Dc  Rel.,  AAS,  V,  431 ;  Vermeersch,  Per.,  VII,  n.  702. 
so  Vermeersch,  loc.  cit.,  p.  (25)  ff. 

51  Can.  874,  §  1. 

52  Cocchi,  op.  cit.,  II  pars  II,  n.  36. 

53  Innocent  XIII,  Const.  Apostolici  Ministcrii,  May  23,  1723,  §19;  cf. 

FJC,  n.  280;  Ballerini,  Opus,  Theol.  Mor.,  (ed.  1900),  V,  p.  296,  n. 
352,  3°;  Augustine,  III,  p.  162;  Creusen,  Ecligieux  ct  Ecligieuses, 
n.  95;  Goyeneche,  CpR  II,  (1921)  p.  20;  Bastien,  Directoire  Canon- 
ique,  n.  360,  note  (2). 


Confessors  of  Novices 


63 


of  both  sexes  and  of  absolving  from  all  sins  and  censures  except 
those  most  specially  reserved  to  the  Holy  See  and  those  con- 
nected  with  the  revelation  of  the  secret  of  the  Holy  Office.54 
They  have  not  delegated  jurisdiction  from  the  local  Ordinary 
of  the  actual  place  where  this  confession  is  heard,  but  they  have 
ordinary  jurisdiction  by  a  special  privilege.  Therefore  religious 
can  confess  to  Cardinals  at  any  time,  even  outside  of  the  terms 
of  Can.  519. 

Canon  penitentiaries  and  pastors,  it  is  true,  have  ordinary 
jurisdiction  ipso  jure  (Can.  401,  §  1 ;  873,  §  1,)  nevertheless  it  is 
dependency  upon  the  local  Ordinary  that  both  pastors  and 
canon  penitentiaries  obtain  and  exercise  their  office.  The  right  of 
nominating  and  instituting  pastors,  except  in  pontifical  par¬ 
ishes,  belongs  to  the  local  Ordinary,55  even  if  it  is  a  parish  under 
the  care  of  religious,  the  bishop  must  institute  as  pastor  the 
religious  priest  presented  by  the  religious  superior.56  The 
canon  penitentiary  is  also  be  be  appointed  by  the  bishop,  the 
local  Ordinary.57  Since  this  is  a  question  of  a  privilege,  in  fa- 
vorabilibus  they  can  be  truly  said  to  be  confessors  approved  by 
the  local  Ordinary  for  all  the  faithful  coming  to  them.58 

The  same  can  be  said  for  the  pastor  of  a  pontifical  parish, 
who  is  instituted  by  the  Pope,  the  supreme  local  Ordinary  of 
the  world.59  In  all  convents,  whether  cloistered  or  not,  con¬ 
fessions  for  peace  of  conscience  can  be  made  to  visiting  priests 
or  others  having  approbation  of  the  local  Ordinary. 

Priest  with  maritime  faculties.  Here  again  the  question  of 
approbation  by  the  Ordinary  of  the  place  where  the  confession 
is  to  be  heard,  arises.  Any  approved  priest,  having  rightly 
received  faculties  to  hear  confessions  from  either  his  own  Ordi¬ 
nary  (if  it  is  a  religious,  the  Ordinary  of  the  place  where  his 

54  Can.  239,  §  1,  1° ;  Ex  audientia  SSmi  D.  N.  Pii  PP  X,  Gratiae,  Dec. 

20,  1911;  cf.  Vermeersch,  Per.,  VII,  n.  737;  Fanfani,  op.  cit.  n.  127, 
c.  ad  dubium  II. 

55  Can.  455,  $  1. 

56  Can.  456. 

57  Can.  399,  $  1 ;  cf.  Blat.,  op.  cit.,  II,  pars  I,  n.  439. 

58  Fanfani,  op.  cit.  n.  127,  c,  dubium  II. 

59  Can.  873,  $  1. 


64 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


house  is  located),60  the  Ordinary  of  the  port  from  which  the 
boat  leaves  or  any  intermediate  port  can  hear  the  confessions 
of  all  male  religious  sailing  with  him  and  also  those  who,  for 
any  cause,  come  on  board  ship  and  even  those  who  seek  to  con¬ 
fess  to  him,  when  he  is  on  shore  for  some  other  reason.  Male 
religious  can  be  absolved  by  a  priest  with  maritime  faculties, 
who  approach  him  for  the  peace  of  their  conscience  in  virtue  ol 
Canon  519.  This  confessor  can  validly  and  licitly  absolve  all 
religious  even  from  cases  reserved  by  his  own  Ordinary^  by  the 
Ordinary  of  the  penitent  or  by  the  Ordinary  of  the  place,  either 
where  the  sin  was  committed  or  in  which  the  confessions  are 
heard.61  Exempt  religious  can  also  be  absolved  from  all  sins  and 
censures  reserved  within  the  order.62 

This  canon  revokes  all  contrary  privileges.  All  rules,  which 
restrain  the  liberty  of  the  religious  no  longer  have  obligatory 
force  even  if  at  one  time  approved  by  the  Holy  See.  Some  con¬ 
trary  privileges  were  given  in  the  past.  Thus  the  Brothers  of 
St.  Francis  de  Paula  were  prohibited  from  confessing  outside 
of  their  order  by  Julius  II,63  as  were  thei  Jesuits  by  Paul  III.64 
Just  as  Pius  Y  65  would  not  permit  the  Dominicans,  so  also  Urban 
VIII,60  would  not  allow  the  Canons  Regular  of  the  Congrega¬ 
tion  of  the  Holy  Cross  in  Portugal  to  confess  to  priests  not  of 
their  order. 

These  religious  were  to  be  subject  to  their  superiors  in  this 
matter.  Pius  X  through  the  Sacred  Congregation  of  Religious, 
August  15,  1913  however,  admonished  superiors  that  subjects 
could  confess  outside  without  getting  their  permission,  and  that 


60  Blat,  op.  cit.  Ill,  pars  I,  n.  206. 

oi  Can.  883;  Noldin,  De  Sacramcntis,  n.  343. 

62  Can.  519. 

63  Const.  Virtute  conspicuos,  July  28,  1506;  BRT,  V,  n.  13,  $22,  p.  395. 

64  Const.  Licet  Dcbitnm,  Nov.  19,  1549;  BRT  VI,  n.  65,  $10,  p.  395; 

this  was  confirmed  by  Leo  XIII  (Br.  Dolemus  inter ,  July  13,  1866; 
cf.  Leo  XIII,  Pontificis  Maximi  Acta ,  VI,  p.  120  ff). 

65  Const.  Bomani  Pontificis ,  July  21,  1571;  BRT  VII,  n.  198,  $2,  p.  295. 

66  Const.  Bomani  Pontificis,  Sept.  10,  1625;  BRT,  XIII,  n.  59,  p.  396. 


Confessors  of  Novices 


65 


this  must  be  observed  despite  contrary  constitutions  and  privi¬ 
leges,67  which  were  thereby  revoked. 

The  Code  likewfee  revokes  all  contrary  privileges. 

Powers  of  the  confessor — He  can  absolve  from  sins  and 
censures  reserved  in  the<  institute,  i.  e.,  by  a  general  law.68  He 
can  also  absolve  from  censures  “latae  sententiae ”  inflicted  by 
the  superior  and  they  can  be  considered  as  reserved  to  no  one 
since  the  canon  makes  no  distinction  as  to  the  way  in  which 
they  are  reserved.69  A  censure  “ ab  homine”  is  reserved  in 
the  external  forum  and  not  by  a  general  law  but  only  in  a 
particular  case  so  that  the  confessor  could  not  absolve  from  it 
in  virtue  of  Canon  519. 70 

These  principles  apply  to  confessions  of  sins  reserved  by 
exempt  religious  superiors  only.  If  it  is  a  question  of  a  non¬ 
exempt  institute  in  which  the  local  Ordinary  has  reserved  a 
case  the  confessor  cannot,  in  virtue  of  Canon  519,  absolve  a 
member  of  that  institute,  who  has  incurred  the  reservation, 
since  the  delegated  jurisdiction  he  received  from  the  local  Ordi¬ 
nary  has  been  restricted  in  regard  to  that  case.  The  imme¬ 
diate  and  direct  subject  of  reservation  is  the  confessor  whose 
jurisdiction  and  power  it  restricts.71 

The  same  principles  would  apply  to  the  confession  of  an 
exempt  religious  in  virtue  of  Canon  519,  if  the  same  sin  was  re¬ 
served  “ratione  sui  ’  ’  both  by  the  exempt  religious  superior  and 
the  local  Ordinary  of  the  place  where  the  confession  is  made. 

67  Deer.  8.  C.  De  Rel.,  Aug.  5,  1913;  AAS,  V,  43;  >l  ...  constitutionibus, 

ordinationibus  apostolicis,  privilegiis  qualibet  efficaciori  forma  con- 
cessis,  aliisque  contrariis  quibuscumque,  etiam  speciali  atque  indi- 
vidua  mentione  dignis,  minime  ob stantibus. 

68  Faufani,  op.  cit.,  n.  131. 

69  cf.  Bierderlack-Fuhrich,  op.  cit.,  n.  48. 

70  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  131. 

71  Can.  893  §  l-Qui  Ordinario  jure  possunt  audiendi  confessiones  potes- 

tatem  concedere  aut  ferre  censuras,  possunt  quoque,  excepto  Vicario 
Cupitulari  ei  Vicario  Generali  sine  mandato  speciali,  nonnullos  casus 
ad  swum  avocare  judicium,  inferioribus  absolvendi  potestatem  limi- 
ion!  cs.;  cf.  Arregui,  Summarium  Theol.  Mor.,  n.  607;  Vermeersch- 
Crcusen,  Epit.  II,  n.  172;  Blat.  Ill,  pars  I,  p.  255;  Dargin,  Reserved 
Cases  According  to  the  Code  of  Canon  Law,  p.  35;  Noldin,  De 
Saeramcntis,  n.  355;  Tanquerey,  Theol.  Mor.  I,  n.  425;  Augustine, 
op.  cit.,  IV,  p.  391;  CpR.  (1922),  III,  p.  69-77;  Genicot,  Theol.  Mor., 
II,  n.  337. 


66 


Confessors  of  Male  Religious 


Such  a  confessor  could  not  absolve,  it  seems,  without  special 
faculties72  or  without  recourse  to  the  local  Ordinary.  If  they 
are  to  be  absolved  in  virtue  of  jurisdiction  received  from  the 
local  Ordinary  it  seems  that  just  as  the  limitation  of  the  power 
of  the  confessor  prevents  him  from  absolving  a  “peregrinus” 
from  a  diocesan  reservation,73  it  likewise  prevents  the  absolution 
of  a  religious  from  a  sin  reserved  bjoth  in  the  order  and  the 
diocese.74 

Moreover  if  regulars  were  immune  from  the  simple  reser¬ 
vations  of  bishops,  the  conclusion  would  have  to  be  drawn  that 
they  are  bound  only  by  pontifical  reservations  since  by  Canon 
518,  §  1  and  519  they  can  be  absolved  from  reservations  of  the 
order.  This  seems  to  be  foreign  to  the  intention  of  the  law. 
To  make  confession  easy  the  Code  wished  to  propose  a  common 
norm,  to  which  both  subjects  and  outsiders  are  to  be  sub¬ 
jected,  by  determining  the  origin  of  jurisdiction75  for  the  con¬ 
fessions  of  all  indiscriminately.  Thus  the  main  element  to  be 
considered  in  all  cases  of  reservation  is  the  place  of  confession 
and  not  the  place  or  jurisdiction  within  which  the  sin  was  com¬ 
mitted.76 

Therefore  male  religious,  whether  exempt  or  non-exempt, 
who  commit,  either  within  the  diocese  or  outside  of  it,  a  sin, 
even  if  it  is  not  reserved  within  the  order  but  in  the  diocese, 
cannot  be  absolved  from  that  reservation  in  virtue  of  Canon 
519. 77  Of  course,  the  reservation  of  sins  ratione  sui  ceases  in 
cases  of  sickness  which  confine  the  penitent  to  the  house  or  if 
the  faculty  has  been  refused  or  could  not  be  requested  without 
danger  of  grave  injury  to  the  penitent  or  violation  of  the  seal.78 
For  these  and  other  censures  outside  of  the  order  the  confessor 
can  absolve  in  more  urgent  cases  according  to  Canon  2254  and 
in  danger  of  death  in  virtue  of  Canon  2252. 

72  Genicot,  loc.  cit. 

73  Pont.  Com.  ad  C.  I.  C.  Auth.  Inter.,  Nov.  24,  1920,  AAS  XII,  364. 

74  Cf.  Vermeersch-Creusen,  loc.  cit.;  Dargin,  loc.  cit. 

75  Voltas,  CpE.  (1922),  III,  p.  76  ff. 

76  Vermeersch-Creusen,  loc.  cit.;  Dargin,  loc.  cit. 

77  Voltas,  loc.  cit.;  Creusen,  Eeligieux  et  Eeligieuses.  n.  89. 

78  Can.  900  $  $  1,  2,  .  ' 


Confessors  of  Novices 


67 


The  faculty  of  absolving  from  reservations  of  local  Or¬ 
dinaries  belongs  ipso  jure ,  (1)  to  the  canon  penitentiary;79 
(2)  to  pastors  and  those  coming  under  that  name  (including 
quasi-pastors  of  quasi-parishes  into  which  a  vicariate  or  pre¬ 
fecture  apostolic  has  been  divided  ;80  parochial  vicars,  if  en¬ 
dowed  with  full  parochial  powers)  during  the  time  for  the  ful¬ 
filment  of  the  paschal  precept,81  whether  that  be  according  to 
common  law  or  extended  by  the  Ordinaries.  The  confession  need 
not  be  made  for  the  fulfilment  of  the  Easter  duty;82  (3)  indivi¬ 
dual  missionaries  during  the  time  they  give  missions  to  the 
people83 

79  Can.  401,  $  1;  Can.  899,  $  2. 

80  Can.  216,  $$  2,  3;  Can.  899  $3. 

81  Can.  451. 

82  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  II,  n.  180. 

83  Can.  899,  $  3. 


APPENDIX 


CONFESSORS  OF  SEMINARIANS. 

Students  for  the  secular  priesthood  in  seminaries  are  not 
religious  but  they  live  in  community  and  the  code  has  made 
definite  regulations  for  their  confessors  similar  to  those  for 
religious. 

Ordinary  Confessors. 

In  every  seminary  there  must  be  at  least  two  ordinary  con¬ 
fessors  and  a  spiritual  director,  distinct  from  the  rector  of  the 
seminary  or  college.1  Since  the  spiritual  director  is  wont  to 
hear  these  confessions  and  is  indeed  generally  the  principal 
confessor,  three  confessors  at  least  must  he  assigned.  It  is  not 
necessary  however  that  these  three  reside  in  the  seminary  or 
college.2 

The  Sacred  Congregation  for  Seminaries  and  Universities 
at  the  command  of  Pius  XI  issued  a  decree  to  all  local  Ordinaries 
to  the  effect  that  a  triennial  report  should'  be  made  to  the  Holy 
See  in  regard  to  their  Seminaries.  The  question  required  to 
he  answered,  as  to  whether  the  spiritual  directors  who  live  in 
the  seminary  held  any  other  office  besides  this  3  does  not  imply 


1  Can.  1358. 

2  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  II,  n.  692. 

3  S.  C.  De  Seminariis  et  Studiorum  Universitatibus,  Decree  Quo  uberiore, 

Feb.  2,  1924;  **  Utrum  sit  Magister  Pietatis,  seu  Director  Spiritnalis, 
debita  prudentia,  doctrina,  pietate  ornatus,  qui  in  seminario  degat , 
nulloque  alio  officio  implicetur  (Can.  642,  $1  n.  2  $ 2 ;  1358 ;  1360). 
An  praeter  ipsum  adsint  alii  confessarii,  sive  ordinarii  sive  extra- 
ordinarii  et  praecepta  Can.  1361,  $  l-2~  cV/stodiantur,”  Cf.  AAS 
XVII,  549,  n.  10. 


[68] 


69 


Confessors  of  Seminarians 


according  to  Vermeersh-Creusen,4  the  suppression  of  the  cus¬ 
tom  existing  outside  of  Italy.  Students  by  this  custom  choose 
professors  as  their  own  individual  spiritual  directors  contrary 
to  the  Italian  usage  of  one  appointed  spiritual  director  who  can 
perform  in  the  seminary  itself  no  other  office  except  that  of  mas¬ 
ter  of  religion  in  the  minor  seminary  or  any  secondary  school  of 
the  major  seminary.  The  Congregation  permits  to  those  regions 
outside  of  Rome  their  own  custom  and  merely  requires  the  dec¬ 
laration  in  the  report  of  the  custom  that  is  followed,  which  is 
permissible  until  Rome  states  otherwise.5 6 

Other  Confessors. 

Besides  the  ordinary  confessors  there  should  be  appointed 
other  confessors  whom  the  students  can  freely  approach.0 

The  freedom  of  approach  is  safeguarded  by  the  fact  that 
if  these  confessors  live  outside  the  seminary  and  a  student  de¬ 
sires  to  approach  one  of  them,  the  rector  shall  call  him  without 
in  any  way  asking  the  reason  or  showing  signs  of  displeasure. 
If  they  live  in  the  seminary  the  student  can  freely  approach 
them,  but  always  in  accordance  with  the  discipline  of  the  house.7 
This  should  not  become  a  custom  or  be  done  in  a  way  detrimen¬ 
tal  to  good  order,  e.  g.,  by  withdrawing  without  permission  from 
the  lecture  room  or  study  hall  or  common  exercises.  In  excep¬ 
tional  cases  however  such  a  relaxation  may  be  justified.8 

The  rule  for  religious  communities  that  they  may  be  given 
extraordinary  confessors  at  least  four  times  a  year  may  also 
be  applied  here  9  but  it  is  not  obligatory. 

Qualities  of  Confessors. 

The  spiritual  director  and  the  ordinary  and  extraordinary 
confessors  should  be  only  such  priests  as  are  distinguished  not 
only  for  their  learning  but  also  for  their  virtues  and  prudence 

4  Epit.,  loc.  cit. 

5  Vermeersch-Creusen,  loc.  cit. 

6  Can.  1361,  $  1. 

7  Can.  1361,  $  2.  cf.  Blat,  III,  pars  IV,  n.  242. 

8  Augustine,  op.  cit.,  VI,  p.  392;  Blat,  loc.  cit. 

8  Can.  566,  $  2,-  4° ;  Augustine,  op:  cit.,  VI,  p.  393. 


70 


Appendix 


so  that  they  may  be  examplars  to  students  in  word  and  deed.10 
In  matters  of  promotion  to  orders  or  expulsion  of  seminarians, 
even  in  very  urgent  cases  which  brook  no  delay  the  vote  of  the 
spiritual  director  and  the  confessors  is  never  to  be  asked  and 
even  consultation  with  them  is  forbidden.* 11  Questioning  about 
other  matters  is  not  prohibited,  butt  abstinence  from  discussing 
his  penitents  is  the  better  policy  here  even  if  his  vote  would  be 
favorable.  For  if  it  is  recognized  that  he  favors  his  penitents, 
he  will  give  occasion  not  only  to  vain  adulation  but  even  sacri¬ 
legious  lies.12 

The  confessors  are  subject  to  the  rector  in  all  matters  of 
discipline,  studies  and  ordinary  administration.13  The  rector  of 
the  seminary  or  college  is  forbidden  to  hear  the  confessions  of 
his  students  living  with  him  in  the  same  house  unless  in  particu¬ 
lar  cases  they  freely  request  it  for  some  grave  and  urgent 
cause.14  The  principles  governing  the  hearing  of  such  confes¬ 
sion  are  the  same  as  those  explained  above  for  the  confessions 
of  novices  by  the  novice  master,  where  the  definition  of  an  urgent 
cause  and  particular  cases  is  explained.15  Since  there  is  no  pecu¬ 
liar  jurisdiction  required  to  absolve  seminarians  it  is  perfectly 
lawful  for  them  when  the  occasion  offers  to  go  to  other  con¬ 
fessors.16 

Appointment  of  Confessors. 

This  is  to  be  made  by  the  Bishop  after  consultation  with  the 
disciplinary  and  administrative  seminary  boards  (from  which 
the  ordinary  confessors  are  excluded  as  members)  and  after 
asking  their  advice.17 


10  Can.  1361,  $  1. 

11  Can.  1361,  $  3;  cf.  Augustine,  op.  cit.,  p.  393.  Blat,  III,  pars  IV,  n.  243. 

12  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  II,  n.  695. 

13  Can.  1360,  $  2. 

14  Can.  891;  Can.  1360,  $  1. 

15  Cf.  chapter  on  Confessors  of  Novices,  p. 
is  Vermeersch-Creusen,  loc.  cit. 

it  Can.  1359,  $$  1,  2,  4;  cf.  Augustine,  op.  cit.,  VI,  p.  390. 


Confessors  of  Seminarians  71 

Frequency  of  Confession. 

Seminarians  should  go  to  confession  at  least  once  a  week.18 
This  can  be  urged  in  both  major  and  minor  seminaries  but  not 
in  mixed  colleges  except  for  those  candidates  who  manifest  their 
intention  of  becoming  clerics.19  The  canon  states  ‘  ‘  Curent 
Episcopi”  which  shows  that  the  obligation  rests  not  upon  the 
seminarians  but  the  bishop  to  see  that  this  rule  is  observed.  The 
Ordinary  may  fulfill  this  obligation  by  questioning  the  rector 
in  regard  to  this  matter  at  the  time  of  his  visits  and  the  latter 
must  answer  truthfully.  Of  course,  knowledge  received  directly 
through  confession  can  not  be  revealed  by  the  confessors  or 
the  spiritual  director,  but  the  latter,  having  every  opportunity, 
as  Father  Augustine  says,  to  watch  the  students  can  without 
mentioning  an  individual  make  a  statement  as  to  the  general 
observance  of  the  rule.20  Compulsion  should  not  be  used  by 
the  rector  or  spiritual  director.  Although  the  latter  is  to  be  al¬ 
ways  at  the  disposal  of  the  seminarians  to  hear  their  confes¬ 
sions,  liberty  of  conscience  must  be  guaranteed  them  and  no  re¬ 
striction  imposed  in  regard  to  the  choice  of  confessors.  Since 
the  canon  lays  down  this  rule  for  the  weekly  approach  the 
rector  and  spiritual  director  could  urge  in  public  conferences 
the  obligation  of  observing  this  rule  and  like  religious  super¬ 
iors  21  could  correct  a  seminarian  for  gross  negligence.  The 
penitent,  if  he  does  not  desire  to  confess,  should  at  least  present 
himself  to  the  confessor  to  receive  his  blessing. 

18  Can.  1367,  2°. 

19  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  II,  n.  701. 

20  Augustine,  op.  cit.,  VI,  p.  405  ff. 

21  Can.  595,  $  1,  3°. 


t 


PART  II 


CONFESSORS  OF  FEMALE 

RELIGIOUS 


CHAPTER  VII. 


THE  ORIGIN  AND  DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE  LAW. 

I.  In  Rules  of  Religious  Orders. 

The  stages  of  legislative  progress  on  this  matter  are  much 
better  defined  than  those  of  male  religious  due  to  the  fact  that, 
although  the  religious  women  are  sometimes  subject  to  regu¬ 
lars,  the  attendance  of  a  priest  for  confession  would  require 
special  legislation  in  religious  institutes  and  local  and  gen¬ 
eral  councils.  The  confessor  of  male  religious  in  their  own 
houses  mighty  be  assumed  as  a  matter  of  course  but  the  cloister 
of  females  required  special  regulations.1 

At  the  inception  of  female  monasticism  one  can  hardly 
expect  to  find  anything  definite  except,  perhaps,  the  fact  that 
the  nuns  did  confess  to  a  priest. 

Packomius. 

This  originator  of  the  cenobitical  life  for  monks  also  has 
attributed  to  him  a  rule  for  the  nuns  of  his  time,  who  lived  in 
communities  under  his  system  and  of  whom  his  sister  was 
superioress.  This  rule  is  not  authentic,  yet  its  translation  by 
St.  Jerome  may  contain  some  of  his  principles,  for  it  was  writ¬ 
ten  during  the  century  in  which  he  lived,  i.  e.,  the  fourth.2 
In  this  rule  of  Pachomius  are  the  words  “Seniores  qui  monas- 
terio  virginium  delegati  sunt.”3  Whether  these  seniores  were 
priests  and  heard  the  confessions  of  these  nuns,  cannot,  with 

1  Schaaf,  The  Cloister ,  p.  30,  31. 

2  St.  Benedict  of  Aniane,  Codex  Begularum,  MPL,  CIII,  416. 

3  De  Disciplina  Puellarum,  LXXXII.  Gazaeus,  Cassiani  Opera  Omnia , 

p.  816. 


[75] 


76  Confessors  of  Female  Religious 

certainty,  be  determined.  Ladeuze  merely  says  that  these 
monks  were  to  instruct  them  in  Scripture  and  perform  the  di¬ 
vine  offices  and  other  necessary  services  for  the  nuns.4  Gazaeus 
goes  even  further  and  says  there  must  have  been  spiritual  con¬ 
fessors  or  fathers  living  in  the  neighborhood  by  whom  the  nuns 
were  instructed  and  directed.  These  were  commonly  called 
confessors  (qui  vulgo  confessarii  vocantur).5 

St.  Basil.  (Born  about  316). 

His  rule  for  nuns  states  that,  if  the  priest  thinks  it  fit, 
it  would  be  advisable  that  when  a  sister  confesses,  the  abbess 
should  be  present  at  the  time  he  imposes  the  penance  for  the 
emendation  of  the  sinner.6  He  speaks  openly  of  confession  to 
the  priest  as  something  distinctive,  for  “culpa”  confession  of 
nuns  was  made  to  their  mother  superior.  The  priest  had  it  at 
his  discretion  to  impose  the  penance  through  the  abbess  for 
the  good  government  of  the  community.  There  was  evidently 
one  priest  appointed  in  charge  of  the  Basilian  monasteries  of 
nuns,  one  of  whose  functions  was  the  hearing  of  the  nuns’  con¬ 
fessions.  This  is  the  first  appearance  of  the  ordinary  confessor. 

St.  Augustine. 

About  the  year  of  423  A.  D.  St.  Augustine  of  Hippo, 
Africa,  wrote  his  two  hundred  and  ninth  (now  211th)  letter 
containing  his  so-called  rule  for  nuns.  He  speaks  in  this  of 
public  accusation  of  self  or  of  others  rather  than  of  sacramental 
confessions  and  the  superioress  as  well  as  the  priest  had  the 
right  to  impose  the  penance.7  No  argument  can  be  drawn  from 
this  rule  as  to  whether  the  priest  heard  sacramental  confessions 
apart  from  this  public,  “culpa”  confession. 


4  Ladeuze  P.,  Cenobitisme  Pakhomien,  p.  303,  note  (6) ;  Cf.  Schaaf, 

op.  cit.  p.  14. 

5  Gazaeus,  op.  cit.,  p.  824. 

6  St.  Benedict  of  Aniane,  Codex  Begularum,  cap.  199,  MPL  CXII,  847; 

Clarke,  (St.  Basil  the  Great,  p.  97),  implies  that  these  might  be  only 
senior  brothers. 

7  St.  Augustine;  Epistola,  CCXI;  MPL,  XXXIII,  962. 


The  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Law 


77 


St.  Caesarius  of  Arles,  470-542,  A.  D. 

His  rule  makes  mention  only  of  the  admission  of  the  priest, 
deacon  and  subdeacon  and  a  few  lectors  of  proven  character 
for  the  celebration  of  Mass  and  other  divine  services.8  It  is 
not  clear  whether  these  divine  services  include  confessions  heard 
by  the  priest. 

Cistercians. 

There  were  no  other  evidences  of  the  religious  confessor  in 
the  subsequent  rules  for  women  until  the  confirmation  of  the 
already  existent  practice  of  having  a  sort  of  ordinary  confessor 
in  the  rule  for  Cistercian  nuns.  This  rule  was  written  by  the 
abbot  Blessed  Aelredus  (Ethelredus)  of  the  Cistercian  abbey 
of  Rivesbey,  England.  He  did  not  impose  the  appointment  of 
an  ordinary  confessor  as  of  absolute  obligation  but  strongly 
advised  it.  Where  it  w7as  possible,  an  elderly  priest  of  good 
moral  character  was  to  be  provided  for  every  large  monastery 
or  church.  The  nuns  were  to  speak  to  him  rarely,  except  con¬ 
cerning  confessional  matters  or  for  their  edification.  From  him 
they  were  to  receive  counsel  in  doubt  and  consolation  in  tribula¬ 
tions.9 

Order  of  Fontevrault. 

The  rule  of  the  order  founded  by  Blessed  Robert  de  Ar- 
brissel,  was  written  about  1116  or  1117.  The  Order  was  com¬ 
posed  of  both  monks  and  nuns  and  the  abbess  was  supreme 
in  all  temporal  matters.  There  was,  however,  a  confessor  gen¬ 
eral,  under  whom  the  priests  functioned  in  spiritual  matters. 
All  the  nuns  from  the  abbess  down  had  to  confess.  Even  the 


8  Caesarius  Arelat.,  Sermo  ad  Sanctimoniales,  Cap.  33;  MPL  LXVII, 

Cf.  Schaaf,  The  Cloister,  p.  20. 

9  Eegula  sive  Institutio  Inclusarum,  B.  Aelredi;  “Ergo  si  fieri  'potest 

provideatur  in  magno  monasterio  vel  ecclesia  presbyter  aliquis  sencx, 
maturus  moribus,  cui  raro  nisi  de  confessione  et  animae  acdificatione 
loquatur ;  a  quo  consilium  aocipiat  in  dubiis,  in  tribulationibus 
consolationcm ;  ’  ’  Holsten,  Codex  Eegularum,  I,  p.  422;  cf.  Heim- 
bucher,  Die  Orden  und  Eongregationen,  I,  417  ff ;  Weber,  Cath. 
Encycl.  VI,  130  ff. 


78 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


sick  under  this  system  had  to  be  brought  into  chapel  to  make 
their  confessions.10 

Arguing  from  the  fact  that  the  priests  were  under  a  con¬ 
fessor  general,  it  might  conclude  that  there  were  many  who 
heard  these  confessions. 


Gilbertines. 

The  year  of  1139  brings  to  light  the  rule  of  St.  Gilbert  of 
England.  Under  this  rule  the  existence  of  an  ordinary  con¬ 
fessor  is  assured.  Provision  was  to  be  made  for  a  discreet 
priest,  who  was  to  go  to  the  different  houses  of  the  nuns  to  hear 
their  confessions  at  what  is  termed  the  “confessional  win¬ 
dows.”* 11  This  confessor  is  evidently  of  the  same  order,  for 
that  was  the  common  practice  in  such  cases. 

The  Poor  Clares. 

St.  Francis  attracted  Clare  by  his  example  of  evangelical 
poverty.  It  does  not  seem  that  St.  Francis  composed  a  definite 
rule  for  St.  Clare.12  The  rule  of  St.  Clare  was  approved  by 
Pope  Innocent  IV  in  1253.  The  sisters  with  the  permission  of 
the  abbess  were  to  confess  at  least  twelve  times  a  year.13 

Constitutions  of  St.  Bridget. 

St.  Bridget  founded  the  Monastery  of  Nuns  and  a  house  of 
brothers  of  the  order  of  St.  Salvator14  in  the  year  of  1363. 

This  rule,  approved  by  Urban  VI  in  1379,  was  peculiar 
inasmuch  as  there  were  allowed  only  thirteen  priests.  Here  we 
notice  the  first  appearance  of  the  election  of  confessors.  The 
election  was  to  be  unanimous.  Probably  this  was  due  to  that 

10  Re gulae  Sanctirnonialiurn  Fontis  Ebraldi,  Yetusta  Statuto,  n.  16.  MPL, 

CLXII,  1086;  Lea,  “A  History  of  Auricular  Confession,”  I,  201,  n. 
16. 

11  Regulae  Ordinis  Sempringensis ;  Capitula  de  Monialibus;  “  Provideatur 

sacerdos  discretus  .  .  .  qui  circumeat  Domos  nostros  sanctimonialium 
et  susceptvrus  ad  fenestram  confessiones  ...  In  Domo  ubi  confite- 
bitur  assideant  duae  discretae ,  remotae  a  fenestra,  ut  videant,  qualitcr 
se  habuerit,  quae  confitetur.”  cf.  Holsten,  op.  cit.,  II,  476. 

1^  Schaaf — The  Cloister,  p.  27. 

13  Innocent  IV,  Const.  Solet  annuerc,  Aug.  9,  1253,  ch.  Ill;  BRT,  III,  n. 

CXXXIII,  p.  573. 

14  Boniface  IX,  const.  Ab  origine,  Oct.  7,  1391;  BRT,  IV,  C.  VII,  p.  620. 


The  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Law  79 

principle  which  Boniface  VIII  had  already  given  in  his  Liber 
Sextus,  that  whatever  affected  all  should  be  approved  by  all.15 

So  the  abbess  would  select  as  confessor  of  all  that  one  of 
the  thirteen  priests,  who  was  chosen  by  the  community.  The 
bishop  would  constitute  and  confirm  him  as  confessor  general 
with  full  faculties  to  bind  and  loosen,  correct  and  reform  and 
all  the  brothers  and  sisters  and  even  the  abbesses  were  to  obey 
him  in  everything.16  All  the  sisters,  priests  and  brothers  were 
to  confess  to  the  confessor  general  at  least  three  times  a  year. 
Since  the  consciences  of  all  must  be  cleansed  many  time  a  year 
by  confession,  the  confessor  general  could  choose  as  many  of 
the  other  twelve  as  he  wished  to  hear  these  confessions.  These 
confessors  were  to  be  prepared  to  hear  confessions  at  all  times.17 

The  points  to  be  noticed  in  this  rule  are  that  (1)  there  was 
a  confessor  general,  who  was  to  hear  the  confessions  of  all, 
similar  to  our  modern  ordinary  confessor.  (2)  He  was  to  be 
appointed  to  that  office  only  after  election  by  the  entire  com¬ 
munity.  (3)  He  became  the  superior.  (4)  He  could  appoint 
additional  confessors. 

These  mark  big  strides  in  the  legislation  of  religious  insti¬ 
tutes  in  the  direction  of  leniency. 

This  order  and  its  rule  was  approved  again  in  1391  by 
Boniface  IX.18 

Papal  Privileges. 

Sixtus  IV,  1476,  noted  for  the  privileges  he  granted  to  the 
different  orders  of  religious,  extended  to  the  sisters  of  Blessed 
Mary  of  Mt.  Carmel,  the  right  to  choose  a  suitable  confessor, 
with  the  consent  of  their  superiors.  He,  once  during  life  and 
also  at  the  time  of  death,  having  heard  their  confession,  could 
grant  full  remission  of  all  sins  and  give  the  apostolic  indul¬ 
gence.19 


15  Quod  ornnes  tangit  debet  ab  omnibus  approbari.  R.  J.  in  YI°,  Reg.  29. 
is  Regula  Sancti  Scilvatoris  sen  Constitutiones  Sanctae  Birgittae  Viduae , 
ch.  XII;  cf.  Holsten,  op.  cit.,  Ill,  p.  112. 

17  ibidem,  ch.  xiii;  Holsten,  III,  p.  112. 

18  Boniface  IX,  const.  Ab  origine.  Oct.  7,  1391;  BRT,  IV,  C.  VII,  p.  620. 

19  Sixtus  IV,  Const.  Dum  attenta,  Nov.  28,  1476,  BRT.  V,  C.  XV,  p.  245. 


80  Confessors  of  Female  Religious 

Leo  X  granted  another  privilege  to  the  nuns  of  Blessed 
Mary  Magdalene  in  his  bull  “Salvator  noster,”  of  May  19, 
1520,  giving  very  extensive  faculties  to  their  confessors.  These 
confessors,  if  suitable  and  acceptable  to  the  superiors  of  the 
society,  had  to  be  provided  for  these  nuns.  They  could  absolve 
all  the  nuns  from  all  sins,  crimes  and  excesses  no  matter  how 
grave  and  enormous,  even  if  reserved  to  the  Apostolic  See.  This 
could  be  done  as  often  as  there  was  need,  provided  a  suitable 
penance  was  imposed.20 

This  was  quite  an  advance  over  previous  legislation,  for  it 
gave  the  nuns  the  right  to  use  this  privilege  as  often  as  nec¬ 
essary  unlike  that  of  Sixtus  TV,  which  was  to  be  used  only  once 
during  life  and  once  before  death. 

After  the  Council  of  Trent,  these  rules  need  be  considered 
no  further,  for  they  would  but  incorporate  its  precepts,  since 
no  new  rule  could  be  used  without  papal  approval. 

Article  II. 

Pre-Tridentine  Local  Counciliar  Legislation. 

Council  of  Aix-la-Chapelle,  816.21 

The  Councils  of  the  Church  did  not  treat  of  this  matter 
definitely  and  it  was  no  doubt  due  to  abuses  that  the  Council 
of  Aix-la-Chapelle,  held  during  the  reign  of  Pope  Stephen  IV 


20  Leo  X;  Bull  “Salvator  noster,’’  May  19,  1520;  BRT.  V,  C.  XLIII, 

p.  746,  $  8. 

21  The  Council  of  Toledo  held  in  398  or  400  contains  a  prescription 

which  has  been  taken  by  some  authors  as  referring  to  the  con¬ 
fessor  of  the  nuns  of  those  times  (cf.  Lea,  A  History  of  Auricular 
Confession  and  Indulgences,  I,  p.  179).  The  words  of  Chapter  VI 
of  the  Council  are  these:  “Item  neque  puella  Dei  aut  familiaritatem 
habet  cum  confessore,  aut  cum  quolibet  laico  sanguinis  alieni.  ”  (cf. 
Mansi,  III,  999;  Harduin,  III,  998.) 

Other  authorities  such  as  Du  Cange  ( Glossarium  ad  Scriptores 
Mediae  et  Infvmae  Latinitatis,  II,  col.  952)  interpret  this  word 
“confessore”  as  meaning  a  chanter.  This  seems  to  be  the  better 
view  especially  since  the  wTord  is  used  in  that  sense  in  chapter  IX 
of  the  Council.  Moreover,  the  whole  Council  treats  of  the  different 
offices  in  the  Church,  i.  e.,  the  diaconate,  sub-diaconate,  etc.  It  is 
logical,  then,  to  consider  this  term  as  applying  to  the  chanter  and 


The  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Law 


81 


and  Emperor  Louis  II,  in  816  formulated  prescriptions  for  the 
confessor  of  nuns.  The  nuns  had  the  obligation  of  the  cloister 
and  the  priests  were  to  go  there  to  hear  their  confessions.  The 
priest  that  heard  their  confessions  was  the  one  attached  to  the 
neighboring  church.  It  cannot  be  ascertained  whether  there 
were  many  or  only  one  priest  who  had  the  office  of  hearing  these 
confessions,  as  the  council  speaks  only  of  the  manner  in  which 
they  were  to  be  made,  i.  e.,  before  the  altar  and  in  the  sight  of 
witnesses.  The  sick  could  be  heard  in  their  houses,  but  the 
priest  had  to  bring  a  deacon  and  subdeacon  with  him,  who,  in 
this  case,  acted  as  the  witnesses.  The  purpose  of  this  was  that 
the  priest  might  have  proof  that  he  conducted  his  office  in  the 
right  way.22 

Council  of  Paris,  829. 

The  words  of  the  Council  of  Aix-la-Chapelle,  were  sub¬ 
stantially  reproduced  in  the  decree  of  the  Sixth  Council  of 
Paris  of  829.  The  monks  and  canons  were  permitted  by  the 
Council  to  hear  the  confessions  of  nuns  and  canonesses,  but  the 
monks  were  not  allowed  to  enter  monasteries  to  hear  nuns’ 
confessions.23  The  capitularies  of  the  French  kings  had  incor¬ 
porated  the  rulings  of  the  Council  of  Paris  in  August,  837.24 

Council  of  Paris,  1212. 

Shortly  before  the  Council  of  Paris  in  the  year  of  1210, 
Innocent  III  was  forced  to  condemn  am  abuse  which  had  arisen 
in  the  dioceses  of  Burgois  and  Palencia,  which  had  come  to 
his  notice  of  the  abbesses  of  these  dioceses,  hearing  the  con¬ 
fessions  of  their  nuns.25 

22  Cone.  Aquisgranense  on.  816 — Liber  II,  cap.  XXIII,  XXVII;  Mansi, 

XIV,  col.  276. 

23  Concilium  Par  is  tens  e  VI;  Hefele,  IV,  p.  64;  Mansi,  XIV,  565;  Hardum, 

IV,  1323. 

24  Capitular  ia  Begum  F  rancor  am ,  Cap.  XIX,  Mansi  XIIII  B,  C.  1141. 

25  Letter  to  the  Bishops  of  the  dioceses  of  Burgois  and  Palencia,  III, 

Dec.  11,  1210,  “Quum  igitur  id  absonum  sit  paritor  et  absurdum, 
(nec  a  nobis  oliquatenus  smtinendum)  discretioni  vestrae  per  apos- 
tolica  scripta  mandamus,  quatenus,  ne  id  de  cetero  fiat,  auctoritate 
<  m  etis  opo.stolica  firmiter  inhibere,  quia,  licet  beatissima  virgo  Maria 
dignior  et  excellentior  fuerit  Apostolis  universis,  non  tamen  illi,  sed 
i st is  Dominus  claves  regni  coelorum  commjsit,  c.  4,  X,  de  Sententia 
Exc.  V,  38f 


82 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


This  condemnation,  no  doubt,  led  the  Council  of  Paris 
convened  by  Cardinal  Robert  Courzon,  a  famous  teacher  of  the 
University  of  Paris  and  legate  to  France,26  to  condemn  likewise 
the  abominable  practice  of  abbesses  and  chaplains  of  prohibit¬ 
ing  their  nuns  to  confess  to  others  than  themselves.  The  coun¬ 
cil  prescribed  that  the  diocesan  bishops  provide  them  with  a 
discreet  and  honest  confessor  of  a  suitable  age|  lest  the  blood  of 
these  nuns  might  be  required  of  them  on  the  day  of  the  strict 
judgment.27  In  these  very  strong  words  repeated  in  1214  by 
the  Council  of  Rouen,28  there  can  be  seen  the  hatred  of  the 
Church  for  any  such  abuses  which  render  the  Sacrament  of 
Penance  odious  to  nuns.  The  importance  of  suitable  confess¬ 
ors  to  assure  liberty  of  conscience,  was  firmly  established  by 
this*  council. 

Fourth  Later  an  Council.  1215. 

This  council  only  treats  indirectly  the  confessor  of  nuns 
inasmuch  as  it  prescribes  annual  confession  for  all  who  have 
attained  the  use  of  reason.29  Between  this  council  and  that  of 
Trent,  there  was  no  further  development  of  the  law  in  regard 
to  the  confessor  of  women  religious. 

Article  III. 

From  the  Council  of  Trent  to  the  Constitution 

“Pastoralis  Curae.” 

Just  as  the  regular  prelates  preserved  the  exclusive  right 
of  hearing  the  confessions  of  their  male  subjects,  either  them¬ 
selves  or'  through  their  delegate,  so  they  also  observed  the  same 
practice  in  regard  to  the  nuns  subject  to  them.30  It  was  to 
give  more  freedom  of  conscience  to  the  nuns  that  the  Council 
of  Trent  published  its  decree  on  the  confessors  of  nuns  on  De- 

26  Hefele,  op.  ext .,  V,  p.  857. 

27  Concilium  Parisiense,  Anno  (1212);  Ch.  VII;  Hefele,  op.  ext.,  V, 

p.  869. 

28  Concilium  Botomagense  ;  Statuta,  para  3,  cap.  37;  cf.  Mansi  XXII, 

col.  912. 

29  Concilium  Lateranense  IV,  an.  1215,  Cap.  XXI;  Mansi,  XII,  1008; 

Denzinger,  Enchiridion  Symbolorum,  n.  437 ;  c.  12,  X,'  De  Poeniten - 
tiis,  V,  38. 

80  Vermeersch,  Periodica,  V,  p.  (4). 


The  Origin^  and  Development  of  the  Law 


83 


cember  3,  1563. 31  This  law,  which  from  its  very  wording  applied 
only  to  nuns,  granted  them : 

(1)  An  ordinary  confessor,  whose  duty  it  was  to  hear  all 
the  confessions  of  the  nuns. 

(2)  An  extraordinary  confessor,  who  was  to  go  to  the 
convent  for  the  same  purpose  two  or  three  times  a  year. 

The  bishops  did  not  wait  long  to  enforce  the  decree  of 
Trent.  The  Council  of  Salzburg  in  156  932  insisted  upon  its 
observance,  while  the  Council  of  Florence  in  157  333  specified  two 
times  at  least,  i.  e.,  before  the  Assumption  and  after  Ash  Wed¬ 
nesday,  as  the  periods,  during  which  the  extraordinary  con¬ 
fessor  should  be  given  besides  other  time  approved  by  the 
bishop. 

The  question  that  caused  most  trouble  after  the  Council  of 
Trent  was  the  approbation  necessary  to  hear  the  confessions 
of  women  religious.  In  confessional  discipline  at  this  time, 
there  existed  a  distinction  between  approbation  and  jurisdic¬ 
tion.  Approbation  was  defined  as  the  authentic  judgment  or 
declaration  of  suitability  and  sufficiency  of  a  priest  to  hear 
confessions.  The  conferring  of  jurisdiction,  on  the  other  hand, 
was  an  act  of  the  will  by  which  the  superior  granted  such  a 
priest  power  over  his  subjects  to  hear  their  confessions.  Thus 

31  Session,  XXV,  de  regularibus ,  c.  10  “Attendant  diligenter  episcopi  et 

ceteri  superiores  monasteriorum  sanctimonialium,  ut  in  constitn- 
tionibus  earum  admoniantur  sanctirnoniales,  ut  saltern  semel  singulis 
mcnsibus  confessionem  peccatorum  faciant,  et  sacrosanctam  Euch- 
aristiam  suscipiant,  ut  eo  solutari  praesidio  muniant  ut  omnes  op- 
pngnation.es  daemonis  fortiter  superandas.  Praeter  ordinarium 
autem  confessorem  alias  extraor dinar ius  ab  episcopo  et  aliis  super- 
ioribns  bis  aut  ter  in  anno  offeratur,  qui  omnes  confessiones  audire 
drbeat.  Quod  vero  sanctissimum  Christi  corpus  intra  chorum ,  vel 
septa ■  monasterii,  et  non  in  publica  ecclesia,  conservetur :  prohibet 
sancta  sy  nodus,  non  obstante  quocumque  indulto  aut  privilegio.  ’  ’ 
cf.  Ehses,  Concilium  Tridcntinum  Tom.  9,  pars.  6  Actorum,  Page  1082. 

32  Concilium  Salisburgensc,  March  14,  1569,  Ch.  V;  Mansi,  XXXVI,  col. 

243. 

33  Concilium  Floriense,  an,  1573  j  Rubric  LII,  Ch.  VIII;  Mansi  XXXV 

a,  col,  795, 


84 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


it  is  clearly  evident  that  the  conferring  of  jurisdiction  nec¬ 
essarily  presupposed  the  approbation.34 

The  Council  of  Trent  did  not  change  the  discipline  on  the 
approbation  and  appointment  of  confessors  of  nuns.  Therefore, 
confessors  of  nuns,  subject  to  local  Ordinaries,  were  approved 
by  the  latter,  while  confessors  of  nuns,  subject  to  regulars,  re¬ 
ceived  their  approbation  from  the  regular  Prelates  of  that 
institute  as  the  Ordinaries  of  these  nuns.35  These  superiors 
also  granted  the  jurisdiction  to  hear  the  confessions  of  these 
nuns.36  But  Gregory  XV,  led  by  the  desire  of  having  the  sacra¬ 
ment  administered  by  worthy  and  upright  priests,  enacted  uni¬ 
form,  legislation  in  this  matter.37  Before  the  Council  of  Trent, 
by  pontifical  privileges,38  regulars  had  jurisdiction  to  hear  lay 
people,  but  the  Council  of  Trent  required  that  these  be  ap¬ 
proved  by  the  bishops.89 

Gregory  XV  also  demanded  for  nuns  the  same  right.  Their 
confessor,  even  if  he  was  an  exempt  regular,  was  to  be  adjudged 
suitable  by  the  local  Ordinary  and  approved  by  him.  This  held 
even  for  the  ordinary  and  extraordinary  confessor  of  nuns  sub¬ 
ject  to  regulars.  This  approbation  was  to  be  given  gratis.40 
The  regular  superiors  retained  the  right  of  presentation  of  the 
confessors  for  the  nuns  subject  to  them,  to  the  Bishop  to  receive 

34  Ferraris,  Bibliotheca  Prompta,  v.  Approbatio,  Art.  I,  n.  1-5,  p.  663; 

Cf.  Bouix,  Tractatus  De  Jure  Begularium ,  pars  Y,  Cap.  Ill,  q.  1,  p. 
213  ff. 

35  Pellizarius  Tractatio  de  Monialibus  Cap.  X,  Section  III,  Sub-sec¬ 

tion  I,  n.  163;  Pius  V.  (Const.  “  Ea  est  officii, ”  July  3,  1568, 
BRT  VII,  n.  XCIX,  p.  681.)  in  the  reformation  of  the  rules  of 
the  3rd  Order  of  Penance  of  St.  Francis  states  that  approbation  of 
confessors  is  to  be  given  by  the  general  or  provincial.  Monasteries 
of  exempt  nuns  subject  to  the  Holy  See  were  ruled  by  bishops  in 
spiritual  but  not  in  temporal  matters;  Chokier,  Tractatus  de  Juris- 
dictione  Ordinarii  in  Exemptos,  p.  259. 

36  Pius  V,  Const.  Bomanii  Pontificis  July  21,  1571,  BRT  vol.  VII,  n. 

CXCVIII,  p.  931 ;  Cf.  Vermeersch,  De  Beligiosis,  II,  n.  204,  also 
Periodica,  V,  p.  (2). 

37  Const.  Inscrutabili,  Feb.  5,  1622,  intro.;  FJC,  n.  197. 

38  Leo  X,  Const.  Du-m  Intra,  Dec.  17,  1516,  FJC,  n.  72,  $  6,  7;  C.  2,  III, 

de  Sepulturis,  7,  in  Clem. 

39  Gregory  XV,  Const.  Inscrutabili,  loc.  cit.,  $  1,  2,  3,  4. 

40  Gregory  XV,  loc.  cit.,  $  5, 


The  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Law  85 

his  approbation.41  Regular  superiors  elected  or  appointed  be¬ 
fore  the  publication  of  this  constitution  “ Inscrutabili”  of  Greg¬ 
ory  XV,  could  hear  the  confessions  of  nuns  subject  to  them 
without  episcopal  approbation  if  the  nuns  freely  requested  them 
to  do  so.  But  superiors  elected,  appointed,  or  whose  office  term¬ 
inated  legitimately  after  its  publication,  could  not  be  confirmed 
for  another  time  to  hear  confessions  of  nuns,  unless  judged 
and  approved  by  the  diocesan  bishop.42  Such  approbation  was 
required  even  for  confessors  of  nuns  subject  to  cardinals.43 

Disregard  of  this  decree  gave  rise  to  abuses  to  remove 
which  Clement  X  reaffirmed  the  prescriptions  of  Gregory  XV. 
He  stated  that  general  approbation  for  the  confessions  of  the 
faithful  was  never  to  be  considered  as  approbation  for  nuns 
subject  to  the  approving  bishop.  Special  approbation  was 
required.  He  also  limited  the  jurisdiction  of  the  confessor  to 
the  monastery  to  which  he  was  appointed.  Likewise  a  confessor 
approved  by  the  bishop  to  hear  confessions  of  nuns  on  one  occa¬ 
sion,  could  not,  when  his  appointment  ceased,  hear  these  confes¬ 
sions  without  new  approbation.44 

Innocent  XIII  in  1723  reasserted  the  necessity  of  episcopal 
approbation  for  regular  confessors  of  nuns  subject  to  their 
rule.  He  required  that  the  permission  of  their  superiors  be 
preceded  by  an  examination  before  the  diocesan  bishop,  to  be 
followed  by  the  approbation  of  the  latter.  Moreover,  he  revoked 
all  contrary  and  even  immemorable  customs.45 

His  successor,  Benedict  XIII,  reaffirmed  this  necessity  of 
episcopal  approbation.40  But  in  his  constitution  “Pastoralis 
Officii,”  he  granted  the  superiors  general  and  even  provincials 

41  Pellizarius,  loc.  cit.,  n.  165;  Bouix,  op.  tit.,  pars  5,  q.  XXIII,  p.  262. 

42  Cf.  Ferraris,  op.  tit.,  v.  Approbatio  art.  Ill,  n.  2,  3,  p.  695.  S.  C.  Cone. 

to  the  Abbot  General  of  the  Vallambrosians,  Nov.  23,  1637;  Ferraris, 
loc.  cit.,  n.  4. 

43  Giraldus,  Expositio  Juris  Pontificii,  III,  p.  971. 

44  Clement  X,  Const.  Superna,  June  21,  1670;  FJC,  n.  246,  $4. 

43  Innocent  XIII,  Const.  Apostolici  Ministerii,  May  23,  1723,  $  20,  21. 
FJC,  n.  280. 

46  Benedict  XIII,  Const.  In  Supremo,  Sept.  23,  1724;  $17;  FJC,  n.  283; 
const.  Pastoralis  Officii,  March  27,  1726.  $  8,  FJC,  n.  292. 


86 


Confessors  of  Female  Religions 


of  any  regular  order  of  Spain  the  privilege  or  indult  of  val¬ 
idly  and  licitly  hearing  the  confessions  of  nuns  subject  to  them 
without  diocesan  episcopal  approbation.47 

Based  on  this,  there  arose  the  opinion  that  all  religious 
superiors  could  act  in  virtue  of  this  constitution.  This  consti¬ 
tution,  however,  as  can  be  seen,  granted  an  indult,  a  privilege, 
which  could  not  be  extended  beyond  the  limits  of  the  territory 
for  which  it  was  granted.48  Greater  difficulty  in  regard  to  the 
universal  observance  of  the  laws  on  approbation  was  caused 
when  Urban  VIII,  March  3,  1625,  suspended  the  execution  of 
the  constitution  Inscrutabili  in  the  kingdoms  of  Portugal  and 
Spain,  until  he  or  his  successors  should  decide  otherwise.49 
This  suspension  was  revoked  by  Clement  X  in  his  Constitution 
Superna,  which  was  a  universal  law  promulgated  to  remove 
doubts  and  contentions  that  had  arisen  in  regard  to  the  In¬ 
zer  utabili.  This  constitution  of  Clement  X  was  reaffirmed  by 
the  Congregation  of  the  Council.  Despite  this  revocation  of 
the  suspension,  some  regulars  of  these  kingdoms  and  especially 
the  Cistercians,  continued  to  resist  and  oppose  the  execution 
of  the  constitution  J.nscrutabili  and  the  decrees  of  the  Con¬ 
gregation  of  the  Council.  They  contended  that  they  were  not  ex¬ 
pressly  mentioned  in  these  constitutions  as  their  privileges 
would  require,  if  they  were  to  be  revoked.50  This  led  Clement 
XII  in  his  Constitution  “Admonet  Nos,”  August  11,  1735,  to 
bind  all  regulars  of  these  kingdoms,  including  every  order,  so¬ 
ciety  and  congregation  to  the  observance  of  these  constitutions 
and  decrees  under  pain  of  ecclesiastical  punishments  contained 
in  the  constitution  of  Gregory  XV  and  Clement  X.51  A  few 

47  Pastoralis  Officii ,  ibid.;  Cf.  Giraldus,  Expositio,  J.  P.,  Ill,  p.  748,  970. 

Confessors  of  the  nuns  of  the  Annunciation  and  those  called  Bar- 
barinae  of  the  City  of  Rome  were  exempted  from  this  law  being 
approved  by  the  Cardinal  protectors  since  they  were  entirely  subject 
to  the  latter's  jurisdiction  in  regard  to  spiritual  and  temporal 
affairs.  Brief  of  Alexander  VII,  May  6,  1663,  Clement  IX,  Jan. 
16,  1668;  Cf.  Giraldus,  op.  cit.,  p.  971. 

48  Cf.  Ferraris,  loc.  cit.,  n.  4,  15,  16.  note  (1);  Cf.  Bouix,  op.  cit.,  q. 

XXIII,  p.  257. 

4»  Cf.  Clem.  XII,  Const.  Admonet  Nos,  Aug.  11,  1735;  FJC,  n.  297,  $  1. 
•50  Clement  XII,  ibid.  $  2. 

5i  Clement  XII,  ibid.  $  3. 


The  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Law 


8 7 


years  after  his  accession  to  the  See  of  Peter  as  successor  to 
Clement  XII,  Benedict  XIV  confirmed  the  existing  discipline 
on  this  matter.  He  stressed  the  examination  necessary  for  the 
approbation  of  confessors  of  nuns  in  his  Constitution,  “Ad 
MUitantis,”  March  30,  1742.52  The  next  year  he  imposed  this 
discipline  upon  the  Greek  Melchite  confessors  of  the  Basilian 
nuns  of  the  Monastery  of  Kesruano  subject  to  the  Abbot  Gen¬ 
eral  of  the  Congregation  of  St.  John  of  Soairo.53 

Article  IV. 

From  the  Constitution  “Pastoralis  Curae”  to  the  Decree 

“Quamadmodum.” 

Benedict  XIV  in  subsequent  constitutions  “  Past  oralis  Cu- 
rae,”  of  August  5,  1748, 54  and  “Quamvis  Justo,”  of  April  30, 
1749, 55  urged  again  the  observance  of  these  rules. 

Clement  XIII,56  on  December  11,  1758,  made  matters  clear¬ 
er  by  confirming  a  decision  of  the  Congregation  of  the  Council 
to  the  effect  that  regular  confessors,  to  obtain  the  faculty  of 
hearing  nuns’  confessions,  were  to  personally  present  them¬ 
selves  to  the  bishop.  The  testimony  of  their  superiors  as  to 
their  sufficiency  and  suitability  sent  to  the  bishop,  would  not 
suffice. 

This  legislation,  so  far  treated,  was  made  specifically  for 
nuns  and  only  for  their  confessions  was  special  approbation 
required.  But  very  often  jurisdiction  for  confessions  of  other 
religious  women,  who  were  not  nuns,  was  given  by  bishops  to 
certain  priests  exclusively.57 

For  religious  of  simple  vows,  the  confessors  were  to  observe 
the  statutes  of  the  bishops  of  individual  dioceses.  The  bishops, 
however,  were  wont  to  reserve  to  themselves  the  special  appro¬ 
bation  for  professed  of  simple  vows,58  as  is  evident  from  the 
letters  of  approbation  and  the  synodal  statutes  of  many  dio- 

52  $  19,  20;  FJC,  n.  326. 

53  Encycl.  Lit.  Demandatum,  Dec.  24,  1743;  FJC,  388,  $  23,  24. 

54  $  9,  FJC.  388. 

55  $  13,  FJC.  398. 

56  Const.  Inter  Multiplies,  $5;  Fontes,  449. 

57  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  op.  tit.,  n.  49,  p.  91. 

53  Gury,  Compendium  Theol.  Mor.,  II,  n.  568,  p.  260;  Aertnys,  Theol. 

Mor.,  Lib.  VI,  n.  233,  p.  149. 


88 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


ceses.59  Gradually,  this  custom  was  introduced  into  the  Church, 
which  Leo  XIII  in  his  constitution  Conditae  a  Christo,  of  Dec. 
8,  1900,  approved.60  This  was  formulated  very  clearly  by  the 
Congregation  of  Religious  in  Article  VI  of  the  Decree  Cum  de 
Saeramentalibus,  of  Feb.,  1913, 61  and  is  contained  in  Canons 
876  and  525. 

The  constitution,  Pastoralis  Curae,  published  by  Benedict 
XIV  on  August  5,  1748,  is  of  the  greatest  importance,  for  it  is 
an  interpretation  of  the  Council  of  Trent  and  a  concise  state¬ 
ment  of  all  previous  papal  legislation.  It  also  approved  many 
decrees  of  the  Congregation  of  the  Council.62 

Thq  prelates  of  monasteries  were  wont  to  appoint  one  con¬ 
fessor  for  a  period  of  three  years.  This  had  often  caused  great 
anguish  and  affliction  of  soul  to  nuns  living  in  cloister.  Through 
shame  and  other  causes,  some  were  prevented  from  revealing  the 
hidden  things  of  their  consciences.  Thus  they  were  led  to  de¬ 
tract  from  the  integrity  of  confession  and  cast  themselves  into 
the  abyss  of,  eternal  damnation.63  That  this  is  not  rarely  hap¬ 
pened,  Benedict  XIV  knew  from  the  matters  treated  by  the 
apostolic  Penitentiary,  from  his  experiences  as  a  bishop  and 
from  cases  brought  to  him  at  the  chair  of  Peter.  As  a  result 
Benedict  XIV  stated  that  he  did  not  wish  to  revoke  the  law 
of  one  confessor  of  nuns  to  a  monastery  as'  given  in  the  Council 
of  Trent.  On  the  other  hand,  he  would  not  allow  every  nun 


59  Statuta  Dioecesis  Novarcensis,  (  ...  in  Synodo  Dioecesana  tertia 

1878),  n.  63,  p.  51;  Synodus  Dioecesana  Manch ester iensis  I  (1886), 
Statuta,  n.  118,  p.  29;  Synodus  Dioecesana  Neo-Eboracensis  V 
(1886),  n.  158,  p.  40;  Synodus  Dioecesana  Albanensis  IF  (1887)) 
Statuta  n.  75,  p.  13  (ter),  “Ad  valide  absolvendas  religiosas,  illis 
exceptis  quae  justa  de  causa  extra  Monasterium  suum  versantur, 
specialis  a  Nobis  requiritur  facultas;’’  Synodus  Dioecesana  Albanen¬ 
sis  V  (1890),  n.  88,  p.  34;  ibid.  VI  (1895),  n.  87,  p.  35;  cf.  Acta 
et  Decreta  I  Concilii  Plenarii  Australasiae  (1885),  n.  91,  p.  33; 
ibid.  11  Concilii  (1895),  n.  94,  p.  36;  cf.  Hizette,  op.  cit.,  p.  106* 
Appendix  II  for  the  synods  of  Belgium. 

69  Pt.  I,  $  11,  Pt.  II,  $8;  cf.  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (1907),  n.  2097. 

61  Art.  VI.  AAS,  V,  p.  62. 

6-  Vermeersch,  Periodica ,  V,  p.  (4). 

63  Const.  Pastoralis  Curae,  $  1,  FJC,  n.  388;  Cf.  Choupin,  L’Etat  Religieux 


The  Origin^  and  Development  of  the  Law  89 

to  choose  her  own  confessor,  bnt  by  casuistry  he  attempted  to 
give  remedies  for  particular  cases  that  might  arise.64  For  this 
purpose  he  outlined  the  laws  for  the  extraordinary  confessor. 
His  prescriptions  were  (1)  That  bishops  and  regular  prelates 
had  to  give,  in  conformity  with  the  Council  of  Trent,  an  extra¬ 
ordinary  confessor  two  or  three  times  a  year  to  those  monas¬ 
teries  of  nuns  respectively  subject  to  them.  The  council  made 
this  decision  because  some  nuns  could  not  make  an  integral  and 
beneficial  confession  to  their  ordinary  confessor.65  (2)  He  in¬ 
terpreted  the  Council  of  Trent  as  not  imposing  an  obligation 
upon  the  superioresses,  professed,  novices  and  girls  being  edu¬ 
cated  in  a  monastery,  of  confessing  on  these  occasions  to  the 
extraordinary  confessor.  They  were  only  required  to  present 
themselves  before  him  at  least,  to  receive  advice  if  they  did  not 
care  to  confess.  The  purpose  of  this  was  to  prevent  comparisons 
and  suspicions  which  otherwise  would  arise  as  to  the  necessity 
for  going  of  those  who  appeared  before  the  extraordinary  con¬ 
fessor.66  (3)  The  choice  and  appointment  of  the  extraordinary 
confessor  was  left  to  the  same  person  who  could  appoint  the 
ordinary  confessor.  Therefore,  a  bishop  should  give  the  extra¬ 
ordinary  confessor  to  nuns  subject  to  him  while  the  regular 
prelate  was  to  do  the  same  for  his  nuns.  If  the  bishop  neglected 
this,  the  Cardinal  Penitentiary  could,  upon  request,  appoint 
a  confessor  approved  by  the  Ordinary  of  the  place  with  all 
faculties.  The  failure  of  the  regular  prelate  to  appoint  an 
extraordinary  confessor  for  his  own  nuns,  could  be  supplied 
by  the  appointment  made  by  the  local  Ordinary.67  (4)  Sick 
nuns  could  request  of  their  respective  superior,  whether  the 
bishop  or  the  regular  prelate,  the  appointment  of  a  particular 
confessor  and  upon  failure  to  receive  their  request,  could  apply 
to  the  Cardinal  Penitentiary.68  (5)  Bishops  and  regular  pre¬ 
lates  had  the  obligation  of  appointing  a  confessor,  outside  of 


64  ibidem,  $1;  cf.  Vermeersch,  Periodica,  V,  p.  (5). 

65  Const.  Pastoralis  Curae,  ibidem,  §  2. 

66  ibidem,  $  3. 

67  ibidem,  §  4. 

68  ibidem,  $  5. 


90 


Confessors  of  Female  Religions 


those  regularly  appointed,  for  those  nuns  refusing  to  confess 
to  the  ordinary  confessor  of  the  community.  This  confessor 
was  to  be  one  approved  for  the  confessions  of  nuns.  If  the 
priest,  to  whom  the  nun  desired  to  confess,  was  not  approved, 
then  the  Ordinary  had  the  obligation  of  approving  him  at 
least  for  one  confession  or  as  many  times  as  he  judged  prudent 
and  expedient.  Failure  of  the  regular  superior  to  comply  with 
such  a  request  granted  to  a  nun  the  right  of  recourse  to  the 
Cardinal  Penitentiary.  The  latter  could  appoint  one  already 
approved  for  the  confession  of  nuns,  either  of  another  order  or  a 
secular.69 

(6)  Even  for  their  peace  of  mind  and  greater  progress  in 
the  spiritual  life  nuns  could  request  a  particular  confessor  al¬ 
ready  approved.  Although  these  requests  were  not  to  be  grant¬ 
ed  rashly  neither  could  they  be  rejected  without  cause.  The 
superiors  appointing  were  to  make  their  decision  according  to 
the  following  considerations:  (1)  if  there  was  no  reason  for 
suspicion,  (2)  if  the  confessor  had  not  only  the  legitimate  appro¬ 
bation  of  the  Ordinary,  but,  moreover,  common  testimony  to 
his  good  character.  When  these  conditions  were  satisfactorily 
fulfilled,  there  was  no  reason  why  an  individual  nun  should  not 
receive  a  special  confessor.  Benedict  closes  this  part  of  his 
constitution  with  the  exhortation  to  bishops  and  superiors  to 
grant  this  confessor  when  asked.70 

(7)  Benedict  demanded  in  the  extraordinary  confessor, 
whether  of  a  community  or  an  individual,  the  following  qual¬ 
ities  :  (a)  that  his  character  be  known  by  his  integrity  of 
morals  and  prudence,  which  is  generally  assured  by  maturity 
of  years;  (b)  that  he  be  approved  for  nuns’  confessions  by 
the  Ordinary.  This  approbation  was  necessary  even  to  hear 
the  confessions  of  nuns  subject  to  regulars  or  when  the  con¬ 
fessor  was  granted  by  the  Cardinal  Penitentiary.71  (8)  For 
the  community  confessors  Benedict  made  certain  regulations. 


69  ibidem,  $  6. 

70  ibidem,  $  7,  8. 

71  ibidem,  $  9. 


The  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Law 


91 


For  nuns  subject  to  the  bishop,  the  ordinary  confessor  was  to 
be  a  secular  and  while  the  extraordinary  was  also  to  be  of  that 
branch  of  the  clergy.  Nevertheless,  the  custom  of  appointing 
a  regular  to  this  office  through  the  lack  of  suitable  seculars  could 
be  tolerated.  The  ordinary  confessor  of  nuns  subject  to  regu¬ 
lars,  was!  to  be  of  their  own  order.  Although  regulars  had  the 
right  to  appoint  an  extraordinary  confessor  of  another  order, 
there  was  no  obligation  to  do  so.  Neglect  upon  the  part  of  the 
regular  superior  to  appoint  an  extraordinary  confessor,  gave  the 
bishop  the  right  to  designate  a  suitable  secular  or  regular  of  an¬ 
other  order  to  hear  the  confessions  of  those  nuns  subject  to 
regulars.72  In  monasteries  of  nuns  subject  to  regulars,  the 
extraordinary  confessor  had  to  be  given  once  a  year  from  the 
secular  clergy  or  another  order.  Otherwise  the  bishop  could 
supply  this  defect.73  The  frequency  with  which  the  regular 
prelate  was  obliged  to  grant  an  extraordinary  confessor  to  com¬ 
munities  over  which  he  had  charge,  was  determined  as  two  or 
three  times  a  year.74  Benedict  prohibited  the  ordinary  con¬ 
fessor  from  placing  any  obstacle  in  the  way  of  the  extraordinary 
confessor  in  the  performance  of  his  office.  The  ordinary  con¬ 
fessor  was  also  forbidden  to  hear  the  confessions  of  any  of 
those  within  the  monastery  or  pious  house,  while  the  extra¬ 
ordinary  confessor  was  performing  his  office.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  extraordinary  confessor  was  forbidden  under  pain 
of  incurring  the  punishments  laid  down  by  Benedict  XIV ’s  pre¬ 
decessors  to  return  to  the  monastery  after  fulfilling  his  office  and 
to  talk  to  the  nuns.75 

The  common  law  up  till  that  time  did  not  explicitly  treat 
of  institutes  of  sisters  or  women  of  simple  vows,  nor  did  it  im¬ 
pose  upon  them  the  law  of  the  unity  of  confessors.  They  were 
subject  in  this  matter  to  the  will  of  the  bishops.  The  latter, 
however,  had  the  practice  of  appointing  only  one  ordinary  con¬ 
fessor.76  Benedict  XIV  realized  that  the  same  condi tip"-  which 

72  ibidem,  $  10. 

73  ibidem,  $  11,  12. 

74  ibidem,  $  13,  14,  15. 

75  ibidem,  $  17,  18. 

76  Vermeersch,  Periodica  V,  p.  (4) ;  Choupin,  op  cit.,  p.  206. 


92 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


existed  in  communities  of  cloistered  women,  would  also  arise  in 
any  community  of  religious  women  whatsoever.  He,  therefore, 
exhorted  the  bishops  to  observe  the  same  form  of  discipline  in 
regard  to  the  extraordinary  confessor  for  those  religious  who 
are  not  bound  by  the  laws  of  the  cloister,  yet  who  live  in  com¬ 
munity.  He  desired  these  regulations  to  be  extended  to  con¬ 
servatories  of  women  or  girls,  for  which  only  one  ordinary  min¬ 
ister  of  the  Sacrament  of  Penance  was  appointed  by  the  super¬ 
iors.77 

The  question  arose  as  to  whether  these  words  had  force  of 
law.  The  affirmative  seemed  the  more  probable,  but  even  in 
this  event  the  words  of  the  decree  referred  only  to  the  appoint¬ 
ment  of  the  extraordinary  confessor  in  a  community  that  had 
only  one  ordinary  minister  of  the  Sacrament  of  Penance.  Where 
the  community  had  two  or  three  ordinary  confessors,  the  above 
constitution  certainly  could  not  be  interpreted  as  directly  af¬ 
fecting  them.78 

In  the  constitution  Quamvis  Justo  edited  the  year  follow¬ 
ing  on  April  30th,  1749,  by  the  same  Pontiff,  he  interprets  this 
paragraph  of  the  constitution  mentioned  above.  This  constitu¬ 
tion  was  directed  to  the  “English  Ladies,”  women  of  simple 
vows,  who  were  subject  to  the  local  Ordinaries  in  regard  to  the 
appointment  of  confessors.  Their  confessors  were  to  be  chosen 
from  the  suitable  secular  or  regular  clergy.  Benedict  expressed 
the  hope  that  the  Bishops  would,  in  this  regard,  keep  in  mind 
and  observe  those  things  which  he  had  set  down  in  his  consti¬ 
tution  “Pastoralis  Curae”  to  be  observed  in  the  apopintment  of 
confessors  of  non-cloistered  women  living  in  community.79  The 
expression  “set  down  to  be  observed”  is  a  rigorous  term  of  law 
and  denotes  not  a  counsel  but  an  obligation.  Hence  the  con- 


77  Ibid.  $  3. 

78  Curran,  Confessors  and  Confessions  of  Religious  Women  of  Simple 

Vows,  p.  18. 

78  Const.  Quamvis  justo,  April  30,  1749;  FJC  n.  398,  $13. 


The  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Law  93 

stitution  “Pastoralis  Curae”  seems  to  have  had  force  of  law 
for  congregations  of  simple  vows  having  only  one  ordinary  con¬ 
fessor.80 

That  this  law  for  ordinary  confessors  was  extended  to  reli¬ 
gious  congregations  of  women  of  simple  vows,  is  evident  from 
the  response  given  by  the  Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regu¬ 
lars  to  the  Bishop  of  Trent.  This  reply  placed  women  of 
solemn  and  simple  vows  on  the  same  footing  and  the  bishop 
was  given  faculties  to  reappoint  confessors  for  a  second  or 
third  term  on  the  condition  that  the  special  rules  for  reappoint¬ 
ment  were  observed.81  The  only  rules  given  up  till  that  time 
had  been  those  laid  down  in  the  constitution  “Pastoralis 
Curae.”  Therefore,  the  regulations  of  this  constitution  in  re¬ 
gard  to  the  ordinary  confessor  were  extended  to  congregations 
of  religious  women  of  simple  vows.88 

There  were  many  other  responses  of  the  Roman  congrega¬ 
tions  which  show  that  the  prescriptions  of  Benedict  XIV  also 
applied  to  communities  of  women  of  simple  vows.83 

But  the  discipline  was  not  exactly  the  same,  for  some  ex¬ 
ceptions  were  allowed  to  the  regulations  set  for  women  pro¬ 
fessing  solemn  vows,  for  instance;  (1)  a  regular  priest  could 
be  ordinary  confessor  to  women  of  simple  vows;84  (2)  any 
priest  hearing  confessions  in  a  public  church,  though  not  ap¬ 
proved  for  women  religious,  could  absolve  school  sisters,  who 
lived  in  community  outside  of  the  cloister,  and  who  received 
the  sacraments  and  attended  the  divine  services  in  the  parish 
church;85  (3)  disobedience  to  the  law  in  regard  to  triennial 


so  Curran,  op.  cit.,  p.  20. 

81  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Tridentina.  Jan.  29,  1847.  Ad.  3;  cf.,  Bizzarri,  p.  116; 

Vermeersch,  De  Beligiosis,  II,  n.  226. 

82  Curran,  op.  cit.,  p.  22. 

83  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Apr.  22,  1872;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  ed.  1893,  n.  433. 

S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  June  20,  1875;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1907), 
n.  1446;  Cf.  Vermeersch,  op.  cit.,  n.  229. 

84  Benedict  XIV,  Const.  Qiiamvis  Justo,  Apr.  30,  1749,  $  14;  FJC,  n.  388. 

85  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Apr.  22,  1872,  ad.  3;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1893), 

n.  433. 


94 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


change  of  confessor  rendered  confessions  heard  and  absolutions 
given  illicit  80  but  not  invalid  as  in  the  case  of  nuns  of  solemn 
vows.87 

Article  V. 

From  the  Decree  “Quemadmodum”  to  the  Code  of 

Canon  Law. 

The  greatest  effect  of  the  decree  Quemadmodum  published 
Dec.  17,  1890,  wTas  to  introduce  greater  uniformity  and  certainty 
although  it  did  not  change  the  existing  discipline  in  the  matter 
of  the  confessors  of  religious  women.88  The  prologue  of  the 
decree  gives  the  cause  for  its  promulgation  which  is  the  re-state¬ 
ment  once  more  of  the  same  trouble  which  has  led  to  develop¬ 
ments  of  law  in  this  matter  up  to  the  present.  The  abuse  which 
caused  this  decree,  was  the  fact  that  superiors  made  their  sub¬ 
jects  manifest  their  consciences  to  them,  denied  them  an  extra¬ 
ordinary  confessor  and  prohibited  them  from  receiving  Com¬ 
munion.  Therefore,  Leo  XIII,  through  the  Congregation  of 
Bishops  and  Regulars,  published  this  decree.  It  was  directed 
to  all  lay  institutes  not  only  of  women  of  solemn  and  simple 
vows,  but  even  to  those  institutes  to  which  the  members  were 
bound  only  by  a  promise.89 

The  decree  did  not  lay  down  a  new  law  on  the  confessor  of 
religious  women  but  only  affirmed  the  existence  of  the  old  law 
of  Benedict  XIV  and  that  it  retained  its  full  force  for  all  reli¬ 
gious  women,  whether  of  solemn  or  simple  vows.  All  old  laws 
and  customs  remained  in  force,  except  in  those  points  which 
were  contrary  to  this  decree  in  regard  to  the  manifestation  of 
conscience  and  the  reception  of  Communion.  Contrary  customs, 
which,  even  if  immemorable,  were  abrogated  by  this  decree.90 
Thus  religious  women  of  simple  vows  were  placed  on  equal  foot¬ 
ing  in  regard  to  confessors  with  those  of  solemn  vows.91 

80  s.  C.  EE  et  RR,  June  20,  1875,  ad.  3;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (1907),  n.  1446. 

87  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  March  4,  1591 ;  in  Bagusina,  Oct.  2,  1626,  and  March 

27,  1647;  cf.  Ferraris,  op.  cit.,  v.  Monialis,  Art.  V,  n.  19;  p.  1099; 
Cf.  Rouix,  Tractatus  de  Jure  Begularium,  p.  334,  n.  8°,  (ed.  1883)  ; 
Curran,  op.  cit.,  p.  26. 

88  Cf.  Curran,  op.  cit.,  p.  28. 

89  8.  C.  EE  et  RR — Decree,  Quemadmodum,  Dec.  17,  1890,  intro.  Col. 

S.  C.  P.  F.  (1907),  n.  1745. 

90  Ibidem,  intro,  and  $  4. 


The  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Law  95 

The  same  Pope  Leo  XIII  in  1900  issued  his  constitution 
Conditae  a  Christo?2  in  which  he  contented  himself  with  the 
insistence  that  the  constitution  Pastoralis  Curae  and  the  decree, 
Quemadmodum,  must  be  observed.93 

But  the  laws  up  to  the  present  on  the  confessors  of  reli¬ 
gious  women  since  they  were  given  at  different  times  and  for 
different  places,  necessarily  lacked  unity.  Doubts  could  arise 
as  to  whether  they  applied  to  all  orders,  whether  those  of 
solemn  or  simple  vows  or  whether  they  could  be  extended  to 
communities  having  no  vows  at  all,  but  living  a  life  in  con¬ 
formity  to  religious  rule.  The  tendency  of  the  latter  laws 
treated  above  was  towards  conformity  of  discipline.  Where  the 
law  did  not  explicitly  state  for  what  religious  it  was  made,  the 
bishop  had  the  power  to  treat  them  all  alike.  Even  after  this 
there  was  still  room  for  doubt.  As  a  result,  the  Congregation 
on  Religious  Affairs  co-ordinated  these  laws  and  published  them 
in  concise  form  in  the  decree  Cum  de  Sacramentalibus.M  The 
changes  adopted  gave  greater  freedom  on  most  points  than  even 
the  most  liberal  of  the  older  laws.  This  decree  bound  all 
bishops,  regular  prelates,  religious  and  confessors.  It 
may  be  summarized  as  follows:  (1)  The  unity  of  the  confessor 
for  a  community  is  retained.  The  number  of  nuns,  however, 
or  any  other  just  cause,  warranted  appointment  of  a  second 
or  even  several  ordinary  confessors.95  (2)  The  maximum  term 
of  office  of  the  ordinary  confessor  was  three  years.  There  was 
an  intermediate  lapse  of  one  year  before  reappoinment,96  except 
when  there  were  no  other  qualified  confessors  or  when  the  ma¬ 
jority  of  the  religious,  by  secret  ballot,  requested  his  reappoint¬ 
ment.  In  these  cases  the  Bishop  or  Ordinary  could  reappoint 
the  same  confessors  immediately.  Religious  who  had  no  vote 

91  Curran,  op.  cit.,  p.  29. 

92  s.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Dec.  8,  1900,  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (1907),  n.  2097. 

93  ibidem,  pt.  I,  $XI;  pt.  II,  $VIII;  Cf.  Curran,  op.  cit.,  p.  29. 

94  S.  C.  De  Religiosis,  Decree  of  Feb.  3,  1913,  AAS,  V,  62,  intro.  Cf. 

O’Donnell,  Ir.  Ecc.  Rec.  (Fifth  Series,  Vol.  I,  1913),  p.  419. 

95  AAS,  ibidem,  n.  1. 

96  ibidem,  n.  9. 


96  Confessors  of  Female  Religions 

in  other  matters,  had  the  right  of  a  voice  in  this  decision. 
The  dissenting  minority  had  to  be  provided  for  otherwise. 
There  was  no  longer  the  necessity  of  appealing  to  Rome  for 
dispensation  or  of  a  two-third  majority  for  this  reappoint¬ 
ment.97  (3)  There  is  no  change  in  regard  to  the  law  of  the 
extraordinary  confessor,  except  that  he  was  to  come  “ pluries” 
instead  of  “bis  aut  ier”  during  the  year.  Every  religious  was 
obliged  to  present  herself  at  least  to  receive  his  blessing.98  Trent 
had  required  that  he  hear  all  confessions.99  This  decree  insisted 
upon  the  supplementary  confessor  of  the  decree  “Quemadmo- 
dum,  ”  to  whom  the  religious  could  easily  apply  in  individual 
cases.  It  made  what  was  formerly  an  exhortation  now  a  com¬ 
mand.100  (5)  The  decree  approved  of  the  special  confessor  for 
the  sake  of  peace  of  mind  and  greater  progress  in  the  way  of 
God.  This  confessor  was  to  be  easily  granted  by  the  Ordinary. 
The  latter,  without  interfering  with  the  liberty  of  conscience, 
was  at  the  same  time  to  takes  precautions  against  abuses  and  re¬ 
move  them  if  they  should  arise.101  (6)  The  old  rule  was  retained 
that  when  the  convent  was  subject  to  the  bishop  he  was  to  make 
the  appointment  of  ordinary  and  extraordinary  confessors.  If 
the  convent  was  subject  to  a  regular  superior  the  latter  had  the 
right  of  presentation  of  the  confessor  to  the  Ordinary  from 
whom  the  necessary  approbation  was  to  be  received.102  ,(7)  The 
same  qualities  were  required  in  the  confessors  as  formerly.  They 
could  be  chosen  from  the  regular  or  secular  clergy,  provided 
they  had  no  authority  over  the  nuns  in  the  external  forum.  The 
age  was  set  at  forty  years  as  the  general  rule  for  the  ordinary 
confessor.  For  sufficient  reason  the  Ordinary  could  select 
younger  men  qualified  in  other  respects.  All  interference  by 
the  confessor  in  the  internal  or  external  government  of  the 


97  AAS,  ibidem,  n.  2;  O’Donnell,  op.  cit.,  p.  420. 

98  AAS,  ibidem,  n.  3;  Pastoralis  Curae  $3.  FJC,  388. 

99  Sess.  XXV,  de  Reg',  c.  10:  Ehses,  Concilium  Tridentinum ,  Tom.  9,  pars. 

6,  Actorum,  p.  1082. 

100  AAS,  ibidem,  n.  4;  O’Donnell,  op.  cit.,  p.  421. 

101  AAS,  ibidem,  n.  5. 

102  AAS,  ibidem,  n.  6. 


The  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Law  97 

community  was  forbidden.103  (8)  The  religious  superioress, 
when  legitimately  requested  by  a  sister  for  a  supplementary 
confessor,  could  not  directly,  or  indirectly  ask  her  motive  for 
such  a  request,  or  in  any  way  show  displeasure.  For  the  first 
violation  of  this  prohibition  the  superioress  was  to  be  admon¬ 
ished  by  the  Ordinary.  Upon  repetition  of  the  offense  the  Con¬ 
gregation  for  Religious  Affairs  was  to  be  consulted  and,  accord¬ 
ing  to  their  decision,  the  Ordinary  was  to  remove  her  from 
office.104 

This  law  differed  from  the  Decree  of  1890,  only  in  regard 
to  the  penalties  prescribed.105  (9)  To  prevent  shame  in  going 
to  confession,  the  religious  were  not  to  speak  to  one  another 
about  confessions  of  other  sisters  nor  to  upbraid  those  asking 
for  special  confessors.  Violation  of  this  precept  merited  pun¬ 
ishment  by  the  superioress  or  the  Ordinary.106  This  was  a  new 
regulation.107  The  religious  were  not  to  permit  human  motives 
to  be  the  sole  cause  for  asking  for  special  confessors.  This 
request  was  to  be  made  for  their  spiritual  good  and  greater 
progress  in  virtue.108  This  was  just  a  restatement  of  the  law 
of  1890.  (10)  When  outside  of  the  convent  religious  could 

confess  in  any  church  or  oratory,  whether  public  or  semi-public, 
and  to  any  confessor  generally  approved  for  the  faithful.  In¬ 
quiries  and  objections  to  the  use  of  this  privilege  by  the  super¬ 
ioress,  werei  prohibited.  The  religious,  on  the  other  hand,  were 
in  no  way  bound  to  report  to  their  superioresses,  when  they 
confessed  outside  of  the  convent.109  (11)  A  religious  seriously 
ill,  even  though  not  in  danger  of  death,  had  the  right  of  re¬ 
questing  any  approved  confessor.  For  the  duration  of  this 
sickness  she  could  confess  to  him  as  often  as  she  desired.110 
This  was  a  new  concession  inasmuch  as  a  simply  approved  con¬ 
fessor  could  absolve  gravely  sick  religious  even  outside  of  the 

103  AAS,  ibidem,  n.  7-10. 

104  AAS,  ibidem,  n.  11. 

105  O’Donnell,  Ir.  Eec.  Rec.  (Fifth  Series,  Vol.  I,  1913),  p.  422. 
loo  AAS,  ibidem,  n.  12. 

107  O  ’Donnell,  ibidem. 

108  AAS,  ibidem,  n.  13. 

109  AAS,  ibidem,  n.  14. 

Jio  AAS,  ibidem,  n.  15. 


98 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


danger  of  death.  Finally,  this  decree  was  to  be  added  to  all 
rules  and  constitutions  of  religious  communities  and  publicly 
read  in  the  vernacular  once  a  year  in  the  chapter  of  the  reli¬ 
gious.  This  decree  was  to  bind  notwithstanding  anything  to 
the  contrary,  even  though  worthy  of  special  and  individual 
mention.111 

Thus  in  this  decree  pre-Code  legislation  reached  its  climax. 
This  decree  had  been  practically  incorporated  in  the  present 
code  together  with  subsequent  interpretation  of  it.112 

Introduction  to  Canonical  Treatment. 

Evidently  Holy  Mother,  the  Church  demands  of  these  con¬ 
fessors  all  the  qualities  necessary  in  all  ordained  priests  to 
whose  care  she  commits  the  administration  of  the  Sacrament 
of  Penance.  Before  hearing  confession,  there  is  necessary  suit¬ 
able  knowledge,  while  in  the  act  of  confession  there  is  the  obli¬ 
gation  of  teaching  and  advising,  of  questioning  and  of  absolv¬ 
ing  the  penitent,  unless  the  latter  is  indisposed.  After  con¬ 
fession  the  confessor  is  bound  most  strictly  to  observe  the  seal 
of  sacramental  secrecy  and  also  to  correct  the  defects  com¬ 
mitted  in  confession.  These  obligations  naturally  arise  from 
the  offices  that  are  incumbent  upon  the  minister  of  the  sacra¬ 
ment  of  Penance,  i.  e.,  the  office  of  physician ,  by  which  he 
should  cure  the  diseases  of  the  soul  and  prescribe  remedies  to 
prevent  relapse;  the  office  of  teacher,  by  virtue  of  which  he 
imparts  to  the  penitent  necessary  knowledge;  and  the  office 
of  judge  of  the  sins  and  dispositions  of  the  penitent  with  the 
concomitant  obligation  of  reconciling  him  to  God  by  abso¬ 
lution.* 1  But  besides  these,  there  is  necessary  special  jurisdic- 


111  O’Donnell,  loc.  cit. 

112  s.  C.  De  Rel.,  Sept.  2,  1913.  Mechlinen;  cf.  Vermeersch,  Periodica , 

VII,  n.  745;  S.  C.  De  Rel.  June  1,  1917;  AAS,  IX,  p.  276;  Ver¬ 
meersch,  op.  cit.,  VIII,  n.  119;  Choupin,  L’Etat  Religieux,  p.  208. 

i  Noldin,  De  Sacramentis,  n.  381 ;  cf.  Azpilcueta,  Enchiridion  sive 
Manuale  Confessariorum  et  Poenitentium,  cap.  IV,  p.  103  ff. 


The  Origin  and  Development  of  the  Law 


99 


tion,  whether  ordinary  or  delegated  over  the  penitent.2  The 
confessor  of  women  religious,  moreover,  whether  he  be  a  secular 
or  a  religious  priest  and  no  matter  of  what  rank  or  dignity,  is 
to  be  endowed  with  that  peculiar  jurisdiction  for  the  hearing 
of  the  confessions  of  these  religious,  without  which  he  cannot 
validly  and  licitly  perform  that  office.3  No  special  jurisdiction, 
however,  is  required  for  the  confessions  of  postulants  or  socie¬ 
ties  of  pious  women.4  The  legislation  on  the  confessor  of  fe¬ 
male  religious  was  gathered  together  and  clarified  by  the  de¬ 
cree  Cum  de  Sacramentalibus  of  the  Congregation  for  Religious, 
which  has  formed  the  basis  of  our  present  legislation.  The  Code 
in  Canon  520-527  treats  of  the  ordinary,  extraordinary  and 
supplementary  confessors  appointed  to  communities  and  the 
special  confessors  of  an  individual  religious,  of  the  sick  and 
those  to  whom  they  go  for  the  peace  of  their  conscience.  The 
code  defines  the  rights  and  obligations  in  this  regard  of  the 
religious,  the  confessor,  the  superioress  and  the  local  Ordinary. 
Many  things,  questionable  in  the  past,  have  been  cleared  up, 
while  in  those  which  remain  unchanged  an  interpretation  in 
the  light  of  the  old  law,  will  have  to  be  used. 

The  following  chapters  deal  with  an  exposition  of  the  legis¬ 
lation  on  this  point.  It  is  to  be  well  noted  that  these  Canons 
apply  to  all  female  religious  and  their  novices,5 6  regardless  of 
exemption  or  solemnity  of  vows  and  also  to  women  of  pious 
societies  living  in  common  but  without  public  vows.0 

2  Can.  872. 

3  Can.  876,  $  1. 

4  cf.  Genicot,  Theol.  Mor.  (ed.  1922),  n.  339,  note  2. 

3  Can.  566,  $  1. 

6  Can.  675, 


CHAPTER  VIII. 


SPECIAL  JURISDICTION  REQUIRED  FOR  THE  CON¬ 
FESSIONS  OF  RELIGIOUS  WOMEN. 

It  was  not  until  the  constitution  Inscrutdbili  of  Gregory 
XV  that  all  confessors  of  nuns  had  to  be  approved  for  this  office 
by  the  local  Ordinary,1  but  from  that  time  on,  although  the 
regular  superiors  still  granted  the  jurisdiction  for  the  nuns 
subject  to  them,  this  approbation  was  required  for  the  validity 
of  the  absolution.2 

This  remained  the  constant  discipline  for  nuns  and  was 
extended  very  often  in  particular  cases  by  bishops  to  confessors 
of  other  religious,  not  nuns,  by  giving  exclusive  jurisdiction 
over  them  to  certain  priests.  This  custom  was  approved  by  Leo 
XIII  in  his  constitution  Conditae  a  Christ,  December  8,  1900.3 4 
Approbation  had  become  almost  synonymous  with  jurisdiction, 
for  when  a  priest  was  approved,  he  generally  received  by  the 
same  act  jurisdiction  to  hear  these  confessions,  and  in  reality 
there  was  only  a  theoretical  distinction.  Approbation  as  dis¬ 
tinct  from  jurisdiction  has  fallen  into  desuetude  and  the  Code 
presents  them  today  as  synonymous  and  without  distinction.1 

CANON  876. 

§  1.  Revocata  qualibet  contraria  particulari  lege  seu 
privilegio,  sacerdotes  turn  saeculares  turn  religiosi,  cuius- 
vis  gradus  ant  officii,  ad  confessiones  quarumcumque  re- 
ligiosarum  ac  novitiarum  valide  et  licite  recipiendas 
peculiari  iurisdictione  indigent,  salvo  praescripto  Can. 
239,  §  1,  n.  1,  522,  523. 

1  Gregory  XV,  Const.  Inscrutdbili,  Feb.  5,  1622;  FJC  n.  199. 

2  Bouix,  De  Jure  Regnlarium,  II,  p.  262. 

a  Pt.  I,  $11;  pt.  II,  $  8;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1907),  n.  2097. 

4  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  De  Beligiosis,  n.  50;  Vermeerscli-Creysen,  Epit.  II; 

n.  143, 


[100] 


Special  jurisdiction  Required  for  the  Confessors  iOl 

of  Religious  Women 

All  priests  both  secular  and  religious,  regardless  of  rank  or 
office,  with  the  exception  of  Cardinals  (Can.  239,  §  1,  1°)  and 
the  confessor  chosen  for  the  peace  of  conscience  (C.  522)  and 
also  the  confessor  of  the  sick  (C.  523)  need  this  special  juris¬ 
diction  in  order  to  validly  and  licitly  hear  the  confessions  of 
female  religious  and  their  novices.  The  law  is  absolute  and 
exceptions  cannot  be  made,  e.  g.,  for  the  fact  that  a  regular 
confessor  is  of  the  same  order  as  the  penitent  or  even  for  the 
episcopal  dignity.  Therefore,  the  custom  of  bishops  hearing 
confessions  of  religious  in  the  diocese  of  another  Ordinary,  with¬ 
out  the  faculties  from  the  latter,  is  absolutely  wrong  and  such 
confessions  would  be  invalid.  Bishops  have  not  the  same  privi¬ 
lege  as  Cardinals  in  this  regard.  Moreover,  they  cannot  pre¬ 
sume  faculties,  for  valid  jurisdiction  must  be  given  expressly 
in  writing  or  by  word  of  mouth.5  Neither  would  the  office  of 
director  of  the  whole  institute  or  the  mother  house,  nor  that 
of  regular  superior,  nor  even  that  of  general  suffice  to  hear 
the  confessions  of  nuns  subject  to  them  without  special  juris¬ 
diction  from  the  local  Ordinary.  Such  confessions  would  be 
invalid.6  Neither  can  pastors  hear  confessions  of  nuns  if  they 
have  not  special  jurisdiction.7  Immemorable  customs  or  privi¬ 
leges  conceded  directly  or  indirectly  by  the  Holy  See  would  not 
suffice  to  permit  this  in  any  case.8  These  priests  not  only  need 
the  approbation  of  the  Ordinary,  but  also  delegated  jurisdic¬ 
tion  from  him,  since,  as  we  have  said,  the  distinction  between 
approbation  and  delegated  jurisdiction,  no  longer  exists  under 
the  Code.9 io  The  source  of  approbation  and  delegated  jurisdic¬ 
tion  in  all  cases  of  confessions  of  religious  women  under  the 
code  is  the  same  person,  the  local  Ordinary.  The  rules  stated 
by  Clement  X  in  his  constitution  Supernal0  are  still  in  force. 
These  rules  are:  (1)  that  confessors  generally  approved  for 

5  Can.  879  $  1 ;  cf.  Creusen,  Beligieux  et  Beligieuses,  n.  90. 

6  S.  C.  Cone.  Nov.  23,  1637 ;  cf.  Ferraris,  v.  Approbatio,  III  n.  3  4  p 

695.  ’  ’ 

7  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  II,  n.  145. 

8  Creusen,  loc.  cit.;  Can.  4;  Can.  876  $1,  contains  an  express  clause  of 

revocation. 

a  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  op.  cit.,  n.  50 ;  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  II  n  143 

io  June  2,  1670;  $  4,  FJC,  n.  246. 


102 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


the  faithful,  are  never  considered  as  approved  for  confessions 
of  nuns;  (2)  that  assignment  to  one  community  does  not  give 
the  faculty  to  validly  hear  the  nuns  of  another  convent ;  (3)  that 
the  confessor  appointed  only  for  single  occasions11  cannot  hear 
the  confessions  of  religious  women  at  other  times.  If  the  Or¬ 
dinary,  in  granting  faculties,  does  not  explicitly  state  that  the 
confessor  appointed  may  hear  the  confessions  of  all  religious 
women  on  all  occasions,  he  is  restricted  in  the  exercise  of  his 
faculties  to  the  convent  to  which  he  is  appointed.12 

Special  jurisdiction  means,  as  Augustine  states,  that  the 
Ordinary  expressly  states  in  granting  faculties  “etiam  ad  con - 
fessiones  religiosarum  ac  novitiarumfy  or  some  similar  form.  Of 
course,  the  very  appointment  of  a  priest  as  the  confessor  of  reli¬ 
gious  implies  this  grant  of  jurisdiction  necessary  for  the  per¬ 
formance  of  the  office,  even  though  by  mistake  this  is  not  ex¬ 
pressly  stated  in  the  written  or  oral  appointment.  This  is  not 
opposed  to  Canon  879,  §  1,  because  the  appointment  as  such  of 
the  confessor,  includes  jurisdiction.13 

Since  this  canon  distinguishes  between  religious  and  novices 
these  words  must  be  taken  disjunctively.  Therefore,  a  priest 
expressly  appointed  as  confessor  of  the  professed  religious  only, 
could  not,  in  virtue  of  that  appoinment,  hear  the  confessions  of 
the  novices,  since  they  are  not  religious  properly  so-called.14 
For  the  same  reason,  the  confessor  who  has  been  appointed 
only  for  novices  could  not  hear  the  confessions  of  the  professed. 
Canon  566,  §  1,  states  that  novices  are  to  be  provided  with  con¬ 
fessors  in  the  same  way  as  religious,  i.  e.,  an  ordinary  and 
extraordinary  confessor,  etc.  This  does  not  imply  that  the  con¬ 
fessor  of  the  novices  and  the  professed  could  not  be  one  and  the 
same  person.  That  he  has  faculties  for  the  professed  and 
novices  will  be  certain  when  he  is  appointed  “for  the  commu- 

11  Augustine,  IV,  p.  267;  Father  Augustine  here  seems  to  confuse  the 

approbation  of  the  time  of  Clement  X  with  the  modern  idea  of 
jurisdiction.  This  identity  did  not  exist  at  the  time  this  constitution 
was  published. 

12  Augustine,  loc.  cit. 

13  Augustine,  op.  cit.,  p.  269. 

14  Can.  488,  7°. 


Special  Jurisdiction  Required  for  the  Confessors  103 

of  Religious  Women 

nity.”  Then,  according  to  Canon  514,  §  1,  he  can  hear  the 
confessions  of  all  composing  the  community,  i.  e.,  the  professed, 
novices,  postulants,  servants,  students,  guests  and  the  sick,  stay¬ 
ing  there  day  and  night.  The  wording  of  the  faculties  must  be 
considered  to  determine  the  extent  of  his  jurisdiction. 

This  peculiar  jurisdiction  is  necessary  for  validity  and 
liceity.  This  is  a  trace  of  the  old  law  which  required  even 
approbation  for  validity.15 

The  Local  Ordinary  Grants  This  Jurisdiction. 

The  term  Local  Ordinary  includes  all  those,  mentioned  in 
Canon  198,  §  1,  i.  e.,  the  Pope  for  the  whole  Church,  and  for 
their  own  territories,  Residential  Bishops,  Abbots,  and  Prelates 
Nullius,  and  the  Vicar  Generals  of  these,  Administrators,  Vicars 
and  Prefects  Apostolic.  This  also  includes  all  the  ‘  ‘  ad  interim  ’  ’ 
successors  of  the  above  mentioned,  either  by  prescription  of 
law  or  constitution.  No  other  religious  superiors,  however,  are 
included.16 

The  Effect  of  This  Law. 

Canon  876,  §  1,  revokes  every  contrary  particular  law  or 
privilege.  Such  a  particular  law  existed  in  Spain  and  Portugal 
in  virtue  of  the  suspension  of  enforcement  of  the  constitution 
lnscrutabili  of  Gregory  XV  in  these  countries  by  Urban  VIII, 
on  March  3,  1625.17 

This  suspension  was  revoked  by  Clement  X  in  his  consti¬ 
tution  Superna.18  Benedict  XIII,  on  March  27,  1726, 19  granted 
to  superior  generals  and  provincials  of  all  orders  in  Spain  the 
privilege  or  indult  of  validly  hearing,  without  episcopal  appro¬ 
bation,  the  confessions  of  nuns  subject  to  themselves.20  All 
such  privileges  are  now  avoided  by  the  Code. 

15  S.  C.  Cone.  Nov.  23,  1637 ;  cf.  Ferraris  v.  Approbatio,  III,  n.  3,  p.  695. 

16  Can.  198,  $$  1,  2. 

17  Cf.  Clement  XII,  Const.  Admonet  nos ,  Aug.  11,  1735,  $  1;  FJC,  n.  279; 

Benedict  XIV,  De  Synodo  Diocesana,  IX,  15,  9;  Augustine,  IV,  p. 
268. 

18  Cf.  Clement,  ibid. 

19  Const.  Pastoralis  officii,  $8;  FJC,  n.  292. 

20  It  is  due  to  an  oversight  then  that  Father  Augustine,  O.  S.  B.  ( Com¬ 

mentary  on  Canon  Law,  IV,  268),  states,  “we  know  of  no  privilege 
granted  after  the  aforesaid  constitution  of  Gregory  XV”  (i.  e.  In- 
scnitabili,  Feb.  6,  1622). 


CHAPTER  IX. 


CHOICE  AND  DELEGATION  OF  CONFESSORS. 

CANON  876. 

§  2.  Hanc  iurisdictionem  confert  loci  Ordinarius,  ubi 
religiosarum  domus  sita  est,  ad  normam  Can.  525. 

This  is  in  conformity  with  the  prescriptions  of  Canon  198 
and  873,  which  prescribe  that  only  local  Ordinaries  have  ordi¬ 
nary  jurisdiction  over  territories  and  that  regular  superiors, 
unless  they  are  at  the  same  time  local  Ordinaries,  have  only 
personal  jurisdiction  over  their  own  immediate  subjects. 

CANON  525. 

Si  religiosarum  domus  Sedi  Apostolicae  immediate 
subiecta  sit  vel  Ordinario  loci,  hie  eligi.t  sacerdotes  a  con- 
fessionibus  turn  ordmarios  turn  extraordinarios;  si  Su- 
periori  regulari,  hie  confessarios  Ordinario  praesentat, 
cuius  est  eosdem  pro  audiendis  illarum  monialium  con- 
fessionibus  approbare  et  Superioris  negligentiam,  si  opus 
sit,  supplere. 

Religious  Houses  Subject  to  the  Holy  See  Directly 
or  to  the  Local  Ordinary. 

Appointments.  The  decree  of  the  Congregation  of  Religious 
of  1913, 1  distinguished  between  houses  subject  to  the  local  Ordi¬ 
nary  and  those  subject  to  the  regular  superior.  It  did  not, 
however,  mention  the  method  of  procedure  to  be  followed  for 
those  houses  subject  directly  to  the  Holy  See,  but  over  which  the 
Bishop  had  the  same  jurisdiction  as  delegate  of  the  Holy  See. 

Canonists,  however,  applied  the  same  principles  to  them 

i  N.  VII. — AAS  V,  p.  63;  2nd  Eng.  Trana.  ibid,  p.  247. 

[104] 


Choice  and  Delegation  of  Confessors 


105 


as  are  now  embodied  in  the  Code,  appealing  to  the  anterior  legis¬ 
lation  of  Benedict  XIV,  developed  in  the  constitution  “Pasto- 
ralis  Curae.  ”  2 

This  required  that  both  ordinary  and  extraordinary  con¬ 
fessors  be  approved  by  the  local  Ordinary,  since  that  was  the 
law  of  the  Apostolic  Constitutions,  even  for  those  appointed  by 
their  respective  regular  superiors,  fop  the  nuns  subject  to  them 
and  even  those  confessors  granted  by  the  Cardinal  Peniten¬ 
tiary.  This  legislation  was  approved  by  Leo  XIII  in  the  de¬ 
cree  Quemadmodum  of  18  903  and  the  constitution  Conditae  a 
Christo  of  1900, 4  and  again  in  the  Normae  of  1901  of  the  Sacred 
Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regulars  (art.  141).  On  all  hy¬ 
potheses,  then,  it  was  the  local  Ordinary  alone  who  could  choose 
such  confessors  and  give  jurisdiction  to  them.5 

The  present  Code  very  plainly  states  this  same  principle 
as  the  law.  The  local  Ordinary  of  the  place  where  the  con¬ 
fessions  are  to  be  heard,  is  to  choose  and  appoint  the  confessors 
both  for  houses  subject  to  the  Holy  See  directly  or  to  himself. 
He  can  do  this  even  for  houses  subject  only  by  indult  or  excep¬ 
tion  to  himself.6  In  this  country  all  religious  communities  of 
women  are  subject  to  the  local  Ordinary  who  makes  the  appoint¬ 
ments.7  Of  nuns  subject  to  Regulars,  there  can  hardly  be  any 
question  in  the  United  States.  The  religious  of  France  and 
Belgium  are  also  subject  to  their  local  ordinaries,  except  the 
Sisters  of  Charity  of  St.  Vincent  de  Paul,  who  are  subject  to 
the  Superior  General  of  the  Lazarists.8 


2  Aug.  5,  1748,  $$6,  9;  FJC,  n.  388. 

3  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Dec.  17,  1890;  n.  4;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1907), 

n.  1745. 

4  Dec.  8,  1900,  pt.  1,  n.  11;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1907),  n.  2097. 

5  Hizzette,  Confessions  des  Beligieuses,  p.  43. 

6  Blat,  II,  pars  II,  n.  588. 

7  Cf.  II  Cone.  Baltimorense,  tit.  VIII,  n.  419;  III  Cone.  Baltimorense, 

Tit.  VII,  de  Begnlaribus,  n.  93;  cf.  Bizzarri,  p.  735  ff.;  Col.  S.  C. 
P.  F.  (ed.  1907)  n.  1263. 

8  Decree  of  Leo  XIII,  July  15,  1882;  cf.  Hizzette,  op.  cit.,  p.  43;  S.  C. 

EE  et  RR,  Apr.  15,  1891 ;  Verraeersch,  De  Bel.  II,  n.  231. 


106 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


Houses  Subject  to  Regular  Superiors. 

The  decree  Cum  de  Sacr  ament  alibus 9  and  the  Code  both 
give  to  the  regular  superior  the  right  of  presenting  to  the  local 
Ordinary,  the  confessor  for  his  own  nuns.  The  superior,  how¬ 
ever,  cannot  give  him  faculties  to  hear  confessions.  This  is 
evident  from  the  words  of  the  Decree  of  1913  “si  vero  Superiori 
regulari,  hie  Confessarios  Ordinario  praesentat,  cujus  est  iisdem 
audiendi  confessiones  pot  est  at  em  concedere while  the  Code 
states  “hanc  jurisdictionem  confert  loci  Ordinarius.”  The  Or¬ 
dinary  can  reject  the  priest  presented,  but  the  superior  retains 
the  right  to  present  another.  The  Ordinary  should  not  habit¬ 
ually  grant  faculties  to  priests  not  presented  by  their  proper 
superiors.10  Therefore,  the  Ordinary  could  occasionally  ap¬ 
point,  by  way  of  exception,  e.  g.,  when  the  priest  presented  was 
not  suitable,  a  priest  not  properly  presented  without  violating 
the  law.  Even  if  he  did  this  habitually  the  delegation  would  be 
valid.  The  exercise  of  these  faculties  would  be  unlawful  with¬ 
out  at  least  the  presumed  permission  of  the  superior.  The 
Code  further  requires  that  when  confessors  are  presented  by 
their  proper  superiors,  they  should  not  be  denied  jurisdiction 
without  a  just  cause,11  unless  they  are  found  unsuitable  by 
examination.12 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  the  first  part  of  the  canon,  the 
words  used  are  “ religiosarum  domus referring  to  houses  sub¬ 
ject  to  the  Holy  See  or  the  Local  Ordinary,  while  in  the  last 
clause  they  are  “illarum  monialium Blat13  claims  that  these 
words  of  the  last  clause  refer  only  to  nuns  properly  so-called 
because  only  they  can  be  subject  to  regulars.  But  it  seems  that 
the  same  can  be  said  of  any  order  or  congregation  of  sisters  of 
simple  vows  subjected  by  privilege  to  a  certain  order  or  congre¬ 
gation,,  unless  the  privilege  expressly  states  the  contrary.14  To 


»  S.  C.  De  Rel.  Feb.  3,  1913;  n.  VII;  AAS  V,  p.  63. 
io  Can.  874.  $  2. 
n  Can.  874.  $2. 

12  Can.  877. 

13  Commentarium  in  Textum  C.  I.  C.,  II,  pars  II,  n.  588. 

14  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  138. 


Choice  and  Delegation  of  Confessors 


107 


determine  this  it  is  necessary  to  consult  and  to  examine  the  docu¬ 
ments  from  the  Holy  See  and  their  constitutions,  etc.15 

The  Confessors  to  Be  Appointed. 

It  is  the  local  Ordinary  who  is  to  appoint  the  ordinary  and 
extraordinary  confessor  of  a  community  and  also  the  special  con¬ 
fessors  in  virtue  of  520,  §  2  and  521,  §  2. 16  Father  Papi  states 
that,  where  there  is  a  question  of  the  four  classes  of  confessors 
mentioned  in  Canons  520  and  521,  they  are  all  chosen  by  the  Or¬ 
dinary  of  the  place  except  in  the  cases  of  communities  subject  to 
regulars.  If  he  means  by  this  that  the  regular  superior  can 
present  the  ordinary  and  extraordinary  confessor  of  the  com¬ 
munity  properly  so-called,  i.  e.,  to  whom  all  the  religious  must 
at  certain  times  present  themselves,  and  no  others,  that  state¬ 
ment  is  correct.  It  cannot,  however,  be  admitted'  that  the  regu¬ 
lar  superior  has  the  right  of  choosing  the  confessor  for  the  peace 
of  conscience  or  greater  advancement  in  the  religious  life  given 
as  a  special  ordinary  confessor  to  an  individual  religious  under 
Canon  520,  §  2,  for  the  canon  explicitly  states  (‘Ordinarius 
facile  concedat.”  In  this  case  it  is  not  necessary  to  have  the 
presentation  of  the  superior.  This  is  evident  from  the  fact  that 
the  canon  permits  the  religious  to  choose  any  confessor  she  de¬ 
sires.  Neither  must  the  regular  superior  present  nor  can  he 
claim  the  right  to  present  the'  supplementary  confessors  of  Can¬ 
on  521,  §  2,  for  the  canon  gives  that  right  to  the  local  Ordinary 
alone  in  the  following  words:  (<Ordinarii  locorum  .  .  .  aliquot 
sacer dotes  pro  singulis  domibus  designent.”  The  decree  Cum 
de  Sacr ament alibus  contains  the  same  prescriptions  in  regard 
to  these  points.17 

Superioresses  will  be  entirely  within  the  law  in  expressing 
their  desires  to  the  Local  Ordinary  in  regard  to  the  choice  of 
confessors.  That  is  particularly  the  case  if  such  a  community 
desires  to  have  an  extraordinary  confessor  of  a  determined  reli- 


15  Bastien,  op.  cit.,  n.  362,  note  (2). 

16  Papi,  op.  cit.,  p.  61;  Blat,  II  pars  II,  n.  588 — refers  this  to  supple¬ 

mentary  confessors  only. 

17  S.  C.  de  Rel.  Decree  Cum  de  Sacramentalibus,  Feb.  3,  1913,  n.  1-7 ; 

AAS.  V,  p.  62  ff. 


108  Confessors  of  Female  Religious 

gious  institute.  The  superioress  should  be  sure  of  the  legitimate 
consent  of  the  religious  interested.  She  can  then  request  the 
local  Ordinary  for  the  necessary  powers  for  him.  Needless  to 
say  that  the  Ordinary  in  such  a  case  is  always  to  safeguard  his 
complete  liberty  of  action,18  for  he  is  to  judge  as  to  the  suffi¬ 
ciency  of  the  reasons  and  make  his  decision  accordingly.  The 
superioress  cannot  impose  upon  the  confessor  her  directions. 
Neither  can  she  advise  the  confessor  as  to  what  penances  to  give 
or  to  bring  pressure  to  bear  on  the  consciences  of  postulants, 
who  are  concealing  obstacles  opposing  their  admission,  etc.  But 
in  certain  cases  the  confessor  will  be  obliged  to  declare  in  confes¬ 
sion  to  postulants  and  novices  that  they  either  should  reveal 
certain  obstacles,  which  hinder  their  profession,  or  leave  the 
convent.19 

Neglect  by  Regular  Superior. 

The  local  Ordinary  has  the  right  to  supply  this  deficiency 
by  appointing  ordinary  and  extraordinary  confessors  for  nuns 
subject  to  regulars.  This  dates  back  to  the  time  of  Benedict 
XIV,  who  made  regulations  to  this  effect  in  regard  to  the  extra¬ 
ordinary  confessor  of  the  community.  The  bishop  could  supply 
this  defect;  (1)  if  regular  superiors  failed  to  give  their  nuns 
an  extraordinary  confessor  two  or  three  times  a  year;20  (2) 
in  that  case  the  bishop  was  free  to  appoint  any  suitable  priest 
and  not  necessarily  from  the  order  to  which  the  nuns  were 
subject,  but  another  order  or  the  secular  clergy.21 

At  least  once  a  year  this  extraordinary  was  to  be  chosen 
from  the  secular  clergy  or  another  regular  order.  After  fail¬ 
ure  of  the  superiors  to  grant  thist  confessor,  the*  bishop 
could  supply  the  defect  as  above.22  Now  the  Code  extends  to 
the  granting  of  both  ordinary  and  extraordinary  confessors. 


18  Creusen,  Religieux  et  Religieuses,  op.  cit.,  n.  98. 
is  Bastien,  Directoire  Canonique,  n.  355  and  p.  222,  note  2. 

20  Const.  Pastoralis  Curae  Aug.  5,  1748,  $4;  FJC,  n.  388. 

21  ibid,  $  12. 

22  ibid,  $  12. 


% 


CHAPTER  X. 


THE  ORDINARY  COMMUNITY  CONFESSOR. 

The  ordinary  confessor  was  a  necessary  part  of  commu¬ 
nity  life,  but  never  became  the  subject  of  general  and  universal 
church  legislation  until  the  Council  of  Trent.1  This  council 
commanded  bishops  and  other  superiors  of  monasteries  of  nuns 
to  incorporate  in  their  constitutions  the  admonition  that  the 
nuns  should  go  to  confession  monthly.  For  this  purpose  an 
ordinary  confessor  was  to  be  appointed.  This  law,  of  course, 
applied  only  to  nuns  of  solemn  vows.  This  prescription  was 
reaffirmed  by  Benedict  XIV  in  his  famous  constitution  Pasto- 
ralis  Curae,  August  5,  1748.2  This  discipline  was  not  extended 
to  all  women  of  simple  vows  until  the  constitution  Conditae  a 
Christo ,  of  December  8,  1900.3 

CANON  520. 

§  1.  Singulis  religiosarum  domibus  unus  dumtaxat 
detur  confessarius  ordinarius,  qui  sacramentales  con- 
fessiones  universae  communitatis  excipiat,  nisi  propter 
magnum  ipsarum  numerum  vel  aliam  iustam  causam  sit 
opus  altero  vel  pluribus. 

An  ordinary  confessor  should  be  given  to  individual  houses 
of  female  religious,  of  any  institute  whatsoever  ;4  whether  of 
pontifical  or  diocesan  right;  whether  (1)  living  in  papal  or 
episcopal  cloister;  whether  nuns  of  solemn  vows  (in  the  United 
States,  only  those  of  the  Visitation  Order  of  the  convents  at 
Georgetown,  D.  C. ;  Mobile,  Ala. ;  St.  Louis,  Mo.  and  Baltimore, 


1  Sessio  XXV,  De  Eegularibus,  c.  10,  cf.  Mansi,  33,  p.  176;  Ehses,  Con¬ 

cilium  Tridentinum,  t.  9,  p.  1082. 

2  FJC  n.  388,  $  1. 

3  Pt.  2,  n.  8;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1907),  n.  2089. 

4  Can.  488,  5°;  In  canonibus  qui  sequuntur,  veniunt  nomine :  Domus 

religiosae,  domus  alicujus  religionis  in  genere. 

[109] 


110 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


Md.)5  or  sisters  of  simple  vows  or  those  whose  vows  by  their 
institute  are  solemn  but  in  certain  places,  by  prescription  of  the 
Holy  See,  are  simple.  By  using  the  generic  term  female  reli¬ 
gious  the  Code  makes  no  distinction.6 

The  word  used  by  the  legislator  detur  is  the  imperative 
form  of  the  present  subjunctive  mood  implying  an  obligation 
both  on  the  community  of  asking  for  an  ordinary  confessor  and 
especially  on  the  local  Ordinary,  to  give  such  a  confessor.7 8  This 
is  clear,  of  course,  if  it  is  a  formal  house*  or  one  canonically 
constituted,  where  there  are  six  resident  professed  religious 
women. 

Question — Must  an  ordinary  confessor  be  given  houses  in 
which  there  are  le.ss  than  six  resident  professed  religious? 

Before  the  Code  an  answer  was  given  by  the  Congregation 
for  Religious  to  the  Bishop  of  Linz,9  to  the  effect  that  there  was 
no  obligation  of  appointing  a  confessor  for  communities  of  less 
than  six,  at  least  if  they  could  not  go  to  a  church  to  frequent 
the  sacrament  there  after  thei  manner  of  the  faithful. 

Does  this  reply  still  have  force  after  the  code? 

First  Opinion — Brandys,10  Biederlack-Fuhrich,11  Stadt- 


5  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Sept.  30,  1864,  Americana  Votorum,  Bizzarri,  p.  735 

ff;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1907),  n.  1263.  cf.  Smith,  Notes  on  the  II 
Plenary  Council  of  Baltimore,  p.  329,  330. 

6  Can.  488,  7°;  Rcligiosorum,  qui  vota  noncuparunt  in  aliqua  religione; 

....  sororum,  religiosae  votorum  simplicium;  monialium,  religiosae 
votorum  solemnium  aut,  nisi  ex  rei  natura  vel  ex  contextu  sermonis 
aliud  constet ,  religiosae  quarum  vota  ex  instituto  sunt  solemnia,  sed 
pro  aliquibus  locis  ex  Apostolicae  Sedis  praescripto  sunt  simplicia; 

Can.  490 — Quae  de  religiosis  statuuntur,  etsi  masculino  vocabulo 
expressa,  valent  etiam  pari  jure  de  mulieribus,  nisi  ex  contextu  ser¬ 
monis  vel  ex  rei  natura  aliud  constet.  cf.  Fanfani,  De  Jure  Religi- 
osorum,  n.  134  (ed.  1925). 

7  Fanfani,  loc.  cit. 

8  Can.  488,  5°. — domus  formatae,  in  qua  sex  saltern  religiosi  professi 

degunt. 

9  S.  C.  De  Rei.  July  3,  1916;  ad  3;  Obligationem  non  adesse  nominandi 

confessarium  ordinarium  pro  sororibus,  si  earum  communitas  sex 
saltern  sororum  numerum  non  attingat ;  cf.  AKER,  t.  97,  p.  85; 
cf.  Yermeerscli-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  591. 

Kirchliches  Rechtsbuch,  p.  153. 
n  De  Religiosis,  p.  87. 


Choice  and  Delegation  of  Confessors  111 

muller,12  and  Grossman,13  infer  that  this  response  had  from 
that  time  on  force  for  the  whole  world.  Vermeersch-Creusen14 
grant  probability  to  this  opinion  (A)  since  this  canon  does  not 
contain  the  words  “etiam  in  domibus  formatis”  used  in  other 
places  in  the  Code  to  settle  doubts  as  in  Canon  597,  §  1,  in  regard 
to  the  observance  of  the  cloister;  and  (B)  because  the  decrees 
on  Canon  520  after  the  Code,  and  which  will  be  treated  later, 
were  not  promulgated  officially,  i.  e.,  in  the  Acta  Apostolicae 
Sedis.  Other  arguments  submitted  in  favor  of  this  opinion 
are:  (1)  that  this  is  a  doubtful  law  and  in  virtue  of  Canon 
6,  2°  should  be  interpreted  in  accordance  with  the  old  law.15 

(2)  This  reply  to  the  Bishop  of  Linz  was  a  declarative  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  decree  of  1913  and  needed  no  promulgation.16 

(3)  The  reply  has  not  been  revoked  because  Canon  4  requires 
for  the  revocation  of  privileges  and  indults  granted  before  the 
Code  an  express  clause  of  revocation.  Such  a  clause  is  not 
contained  in  the  Code.17 

Second  Opinion.  The  better  opinion  contends  that  this 
reply  no  longer  has  force  since  the  Code.  The  reasons  sub¬ 
mitted  in  proof  thereof  are  the  following : 

1.  — There  is  no  parity  in  reasoning  between  Canon  520, 
§  1,  and  the  case  of  Canon  597,  §  1,  because  the  cloister,  being 
a  thing  by  its  nature  limited  to  space,  would  have  to  be  clearly 
defined  in  the  canon  speaking  of  its  extent  and  observation. 
Moreover,  the  Code  uses  the  words  <(religiosa  domus,”  which 
are  equivalent  to  the  expression  qualibet  domus.19 

2.  — If  this  response  was  an  authentic  interpretation  of  the 
law  of  1913,  in  order  that  it  might  retain  its  force  after  the 


12  Das  Neue  Ordensrecht,  p.  18. 

13  L.  Q.  S.j  73,  p.  156-157. 

14  Epit.  I,  n.  591. 

is  Shafer,  Ordensrecht ,  p.  112. 

16  Grossam,  LQS,  73,  p.  157. 

17  Rausch,  LQS,  74,  p.  630,  ff. 

18  Chelodi,  Jus  de  Personis,  n.  257. 


112 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


Code,  it  should  have  been  promulgated,  according  to  Canon  17, 
§  2,  before  May  19,  1918,  and  the  official  Acta  Apostolicae 
Sedis.19 

Since  it  was  at  least  to  explain  the  doubts  submitted,  Leit- 
ner  considers  it  as  a  restrictive  interpretation  of  the  decree  of 
1913.  Since  it  was  never  published  authentically,  it  never  had 
universal  force  before  the  Code,20  i.  e.,  it  was  not  part  of  the 
common  law.21 

3.  — This  reply  has  been  explicitly  revoked,  because  Canon 
876,  §  1,  which  using  the  words  Revocata  qualibpt  contraria 
particulari  lege  seu  privilegio,  requires  special  jurisdiction  for 
the  reception  of  the  confessions  of  women  religious  and  their 
novices.22 

4.  — This  is  not  a  doubtful  law  and  appeal,  therefore  need 
not  be  made  to  Canon  6,  2°,  which  states  that  canons  repeating 
the  old  law  in  its  entirety  should  be  interpreted  in  the  light 
of  the  old  law,  or  to  Canon  15,  whereby  irritating  and  inhabili- 
tating  laws  do  not  urge  in  doubt  of  law.  Appeal  to  these  can¬ 
ons  would  be  necessary  only  if  the  reply  to  the  Bishop  of  Linz 
had  been  authentically  promulgated,  either  before  or  after  the 
Code.  In  fact,  since  the  Code,  there  have  been  two  responses 
to  the  contrary  on  this  specific  point.  Therefore,  this  law  is 
not,  by  any  means,  doubtful  in  the  light  of  the  pre-Code  response 
of  Linz. 

5.  — The  doubt  caused  by  this  reply  of  1916,  led  the  Arch¬ 
bishop  of  Prague  to  ask  the  Pontifical  Commission  for  the  Au¬ 
thentic  Interpretation  of  the  Code  if  this  reply  was  still  in 
force  or  whether  Canon  520  must  be  followed  and  a  confessor 
appointed  for  every  house,  although  the  number  of  religious 

19  cf.  Leitner,  Handbuch  des  Katholischen  Kirchenrechts  (Dritte  Lief- 

erung,  1922),  p.  353;  Chelodi,  loc.  cit .;  can.  17,  $2 — Interpretatio 
anthentica ,  per  modum  legis  exhibita,  eandem  vim  habet  ac  lex  ipsa; 
et  si  verba  legis  in  se  certa  declaret  tantum  promulgatione  non  eget 
et  valet  retrorsum ;  si  legem  coarctet  vel  extendat  aut  dubium  explicet, 
non  retrotrahitur  et  debet  promulgari. 

20  Chelodi,  loc.  cit. 

21  Priimmer,  Manuale  J.  C.  n.  190,  note  (2). 

22  Leitner,  op.  cit.,  p.  353;  Chelodi,  op  cit.  n.  257,  note  (3). 


Choice  and  Delegation  of  Confessors 


113 


did  not  exceed  six.  The  commission  replied23  that  the  prescrip¬ 
tions  of  Canon  520  must  be  followed.  This  was  reaffirmed  in 
another  reply  of  the  Commission.24  It  is  true  that  these 
latter  two  responses  were  not  promulgated  officially  as 
Vermeersch-Creusen  states,25  but  neither  was  the  reply  to  the 
Bishop  of  Linz,  which  was  an  answer  to  a  particular  question 
and  not  of  much  value  after  the  Code.  Therefore,  these  re¬ 
sponses  of  1920  take  precedence  over  the  pre-Code  reply.  After 
the  Code  it  seems  that  even  for  small  communities  of  less  than 
six  professed  resident  religious  there  must  be  a  regularly  ap¬ 
pointed  ordinary  confessor,  especially  since  the  Code  does  not 
distinguish  in  the  canon  between  formal  and  non-formal 
houses.26  “Ubi  lex  non-distinguit,  nec  nos  distinguere  debe- 
mus.” 

6. — Vermeersch  states  that  these  decisions  refer  only  to 
confessors  who  hear  confessions  in  the  house  itself.  Therefore, 
if  the  religious  can  frequent  the  sacraments  in  the  parish 
church,  there  is  no  need  to  appoint  an  ordinary  confessor.27 
But  this  seems  to  be  against  the  intention  of  the  Code,  which, 
as  Creusen  says,28  is  that  a  confessor  be  appointed  for  every 
community  for  that  very  purpose  of  avoiding  frequentation  of 
the  parish  church  by  the  religious  women  for  the  reception  of 

23  I.  Archie piscopus  Pragensis  sequens  dubium  proposuit:  Die  3  Julii 

1913.  Religiosorum  Ordinario  Licenensi  respondit  ad  3  um:  Obliga- 
tioncm  non  adesse  nominandi  confessarium  ordinarium  pro  sororibus, 
si  eorum  communitas  sex  saltern  sororum  numerum  non  attingat. 
Can.  520  CJC  praescribit  vero  hodic  ut  singulis  religiosarum  domi - 
bus  detur  confessarius  ordinarius.  Utrum  responsio  die  S  Julii 
data  hucusqne  valet  vel  agendum  est  juxta  Can.  520  et  pro  un- 
aquaque  domo  religiosarum,  etsi  numerus  sex  in  eadem  domo  non 
exccdit,  confessarius  ordinarius  deputandus  est ?  R.  Serventur  prae- 
scriptiones  Can.  520  CJC;  S.  C.  De  Bel.;  Jan.  10,  1920;  cf.  AKKR , 
t.  100,  p.  47 ;  Hilling,  CJC  Interpretatio,  p.  37. 

24  Episcopus  Osnabrugcnsis  die  2  Dec.  1920  sequentia  dubia  proposuit : 

1°.  Utrum  stricta  obligatio  singulis  religiosarum  domibus  seu  respec¬ 
tive  unicuique  communitati  dandi  confessarium  tarn  ordinarium  quam 
cxtraordinarium  urgent  etiam  quoad  domos  religiosas,  in  quibus  minus 
(  quam  sex  religiosae  professae  degunt  an  solummodo  quoad  domos 

formates ?  Can.  520,  §  1,  et  521,  $  1,  R. — Provisum  in  canonibus  520 
et  521  etc. ;  Hilling,  op.  cit.  p.  37. 

23  Epit.  I,  n.  591. 

26  Creusen,  Religievx  et  Religieuses,  n.  92;  Bastien,  Directoire  Canonique, 

n.  355. 

27  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  591, 

28  Religieux  et  Religieuses ,  n.  92. 


114 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


the  sacraments.  The  principle,  however,  as  deduced  from  the 
canon,  is  that  it  only  applies  to  religious  or  other  pious  persons 
living  in  community  under  a  rule  and  a  superior,  provided  they 
have  a  chapel  or  some  other  place  in  which  they  can  confess 
habitually.  The  norm  for  judging  deems  to  be  the  fact  that 
they  have  an  oratory  or  not  in  which  to  confess.  If  they  have 
not,  it  would  not  be  necessary  to1  appoint  an  ordinary  confessor 
for  them.  Therefore,  those  religious  occupied  in  towns  or  cities 
with  teaching,  etc.,  and  without  an  oratory,  are  no  more  obliged 
to  have  an  ordinary  confessor  than  other  women  who  live  in 
community,  e.  g.,  homes,  being  subject  to  common  law.  School 
sisters  were  for  this  reason  expressly  exempted  from  this  law 
in  the  past  by  the  Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regulars29 

The  pastor  or  any  other  priest,  who  happens  to  be  in  the 
parish,  if  approved  for  the  faithful,  needs  no  further  approval 
or  delegation  of  jurisdiction,  for  he  is  not  considered  as  the 
ordinary  confessor  of  the  community.30  There  is  nothing  to 
prevent  the  Chaplain  of  a  community  from  being  their  ordinary 
confessor.31  Whether  without  necessity  this  would  be  expedient, 
is  left  to  the  prudent  judgment  of  the  Ordinary.32  Cardinals 
can  be  ordinary  confessors  of  a  community  without  delegation. 
(Can.  239,  §  1,  1°). 


29  s.  C.  EE  et  EE,  Apr.  22,  1872,  ad  S;  in  Atrabatin ;  .  .  .  Porro  illae 

Sorores,  communiter  sed  extra  clausuram  degentes,  non  habent  sacellum 
privatum,  sed  ecclesiam  parochialem  sicut  caeteri  frequentant,  ibidem 
Missae  et  caeteris  officiis  adsistentes,  sacramenta  turn  Poenitentiae 
turn  Eucharistiae  recipientes ;  illae  insuper  Sorores  saepius  de  pa- 
rocliia  in  aliam  transeunt  secundum  Superiorissae  generalis  volun - 
tatem.  Porro,  num  in  hisce  circumstantiis  applicanda  sit  juris  dis- 
positio  circa  triennalem  confessariorum  mutationem  .  .  .  ?  Eesp.  ad 
3;  Sorores  de  quibus  agitur  posse  peragere  extra  piam  propriam 
domum  sacramentalem  Confessionem  penes  apud  quemcumque  con¬ 
fessor  him  ab  Ordinario  approbatum. ;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.,  (ed.  1907) 
n.  1384;  cf.  Genicot,  Th.  M.,  (ed.  1909)  II,  n.  339;  Bastien,  op.  cit., 
n.  355:  cf.  Grossam,  L.  Q.  S.  73,  p.  157. 

30  S.  C.  P.  F.  Feb.  20,  1877;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.,  (ed.  1893)  n.  (437). 

31  Fanfani,  op.  cit.  n.  40. 

32  Goyeneche,  CpR  V,  p.  31, 


Choice  and  Delegation  of  Confessors  115 

-  Article  II. 

The  Unity  of  the  Confessor. 

Unus  dumtaxat  detur  confessarius. 

I.  The  General  Rule. 

The  unity  of  confessor  is  prescribed  by  these  words  for 
each  community,  consisting  of  professed  religious,  novices  and 
others  staying  there  over  night  from  sundown  as  servants,  stu¬ 
dents  and  guests.33  This  was  contained  in  the  Council  of 
Trent,34  and  made  the  general  rule  by  Benedict  XIV.35 

The  reason  for  having  only  one  ordinary  confessor  in  a 
community,  is  for  unity  of  direction.  The  latter  is  the  gauge  of 
good  order  and  discipline,  since  divergence  of  ideas  in  spirit¬ 
ual  direction  easily  engenders  discord.38  Every  confessor  has 
his  own  methods  of  leading  souls,  and  each  confessor  feels  dif¬ 
ferently  towards  the  same  soul,  one  trying  to  urge  it  and  another 
to  moderate  it.37  Some  confessors,  members  of  religious  orders, 
even  had  the  practice  of  trying  to  lead  their  nun  penitents  to 
the  customs  and  usages  of  their  own  order.  Thus  they  sowed 


33  Can.  514,  $  1;  cf.  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Deer.  Tridentina,  Jan.  29,  1847.  ad  1; 

Bizzarri,  op.  cit.  p.  116;  Vennecrsch,  De  Eel.,  II,  n.  226. 

34  Sess.  XXV,  c.  10,  De  Eegularibus  ;  Mansi,  33,  p.  176;  Ehses,  Counc. 

Trid.,  9,  p.  1082. 

35  Const.  Pastoralis  Curae,  Aug.  5,  1748,  $1;  FJC,  n.  388;  S.  C.  EE  et 

EE,  Quemadmodum,  Dec.  17,  1890,  ad  4;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1907) 
u.  1745;  Normae,  June  28,  1901,  Art.  140;  S.  C.  De  Eel.  Decree 
Cum  de  Sacramentalibus,  Feb.  3,  1913,  AAS  V,  62;  Boudinhon, 
C.  C. ;  36,  p.  269 ;  Bucceroni,  Casus  Conscientiae,  II,  p.  182. 

36  Choupin,  Eecents  Decrets  du  Saint  Siege  concernant  les  Eeligieux  et 

Eeligieuses,  p.  30;  also  Nature  et  Obligations  de  VEtat  Eeligieux, 
p.  200;  Bastien,  Directoire  Canonique,  (ed.  1923),  n.  355;  Boudin¬ 
hon,  CC.  36,  p.  269 ;  Curran,  Confessors  and  Confessions  of  Eeligious 
Women  of  Simple  Vows  p.  36  if.  Leitner,  Uandbuch,  p.  354;  Brandys, 
Kirchliches  Eechtsbuch,  p.  153;  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  De  Eeligiosis, 
p.  87;  Schafer,  Ordensrecht,  p.  111. 

37  Joder,  AKKR,  79,  p.  464. 


116 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


the  seeds  of  discontent,  causing  grave  detriment  to  the  spiritual 
progress  of  all.  This  was  forbidden  by  the  Congregation  of 
Bishops  and  Regulars.38 


Exceptions. 

I — The  law  of  one  confessor  applies  to  convents  of  nuns, 
communities  of  sisters,  novitiates39  and  communities  of  religious 
women  of  pious  societies  living  in  community  but  without  pub¬ 
lic  vows,40  It  does  not  bind  boarders  and  servants  or  inmates  of 
orphanages,  old  ladies’  homes,  hospitals,  etc.,  and  those  in  the 
house  for  the  sake  of  education.41  This  was  explicitly  decided 
for  colleges  of  girls  by  the  Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regu¬ 
lars.42 

II.  — Because  of  a  great  number  of  religious  more  confessors 
can  be  granted  to  a  community.43 

The  number  required  is  not  determined  by  the  Code,44  but 
a  community  numbering  more  than  fifty  religious  can  be  con¬ 
sidered  as  warranting  another  confessor.  Less  than  twenty  or 
even  twenty-five  would  hardly  suffice.45 

III.  — Other  just  causes  for  appointing  more  confessors  are 
not  mentioned  by  the  Code.  The  Congregation  of  the  Council, 
January  27,  1748,  first  permitted  the  Canons  of  Rimini  to  ap¬ 
point  a  vice-confessor  in  cases  of  absence  or  sickness  of  the 
ordinary  confessor  of  nuns.  The  latter,  of  course,  needed  the 
approbation  of  the  Bishop.46  Other  causes  would  be  the  re- 


38  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Dec.  3,  1767,  to  a  Dominican  Cloister  of  Buenos 

Ayres ;  cf  Analecta  Juris  Pontificii,  I,  30,  col.  1291;  quoted  in 
AKKR,  78,  p.  685;  79,  p.  464. 

39  Can.  566,  $  1. 

*0  Can.  675. 

41  Can.  514,  $  1. 

42  s.  c.  EE  et  RR,  in  Mazzara,  Dec.  7,  1906,  ad  7;  cf.  Vermeersch,  Per. 

Ill,  n.  172;  II  Monitore  Ecclesiastico,  XVIII,  p.  529  ff;  Mothon, 
Traite  de  la  Confession  Sacramentelle,  p.  8. 

43  g.  C.  EE  et  Rll,  in  Mazzara,  loc.  cit. 

44  Leitner,  Handbuch,  ( Dritte  Lieferung )  p.  354,  places  it  at  100  or  more. 

The  same  in  Brandys,  Rechtsbuch,  p.  153;  Schafer  Ordensrecht, 

p.  111. 

45  Fanfani,  De  Jure  Religiosorum,  n.  134. 

40  S.  C.  Cone,  in  Ariminen ,  ad  11,  12;  AKKR,  79,  p.  466;  Cf.  Augustine, 

A  Commentary  on  Canon  Law ,  p.  15§, 


Choice  and  Delegation  of  Confessors  117 

pugnanee  of  the  sisters  to  confess  to  the  ordinary  confessor  ;47 
the  presence  of  persons  speaking  different  languages ;  or  differ¬ 
ent  communities  in  the  same  house,  e.  g.,  novitiate,  normal 
school  for  the  professed,  etc.  ;48  if  the  majority  of  the  religious 
have  voted  to  retain  the  ordinary  confessor  and  yet  those  dis¬ 
senting,  must  be  provided  for  according  to  Canon  526  ;49  if  there 
would  be  the  necessity  of  confirming  the  same  man  in  office  too 
often.50  These  would  be  sufficient  reasons  to  appoint  more  than 
one  ordinary  confessor.  It  must  be  remembered  that  the  deci¬ 
sion  as  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  reasons  is  left  to  the  bishop  who 
is  to  approve  the  confessor.51  The  just  cause  should  not  be  too 
severely  estimated,  since  reappointment  for  such  reasons 
was  tolerated  under  the  old  law.52  The  bishop  can, 
to  avoid  confusion,  assign  to  each  of  the  confessors,  one 
category  or  a  certain  number  of  religious,53  so  that  he  is  ordi¬ 
nary  confessor  of  only  one  part  of  the  community.54  Chelodi 
thinks  this  is  the  intention  of  the  law.55  But  there  is  nothing 
to  prohibit,  and  in  fact,  it  is  to  be  desired  that  these  confessors 
receive  cumulative  jurisdiction  over  all  the  religious  of  the 
house.56  The  superioress  should  be  notified  if  the  jurisdiction 
of  each  confessor  is  limited  to  a  particular  part  or  extended 
to  the  whole  community.57  If  the  jurisdiction  is  given  without 
restriction  or  distinction,  then  any  religious  of  the  community 


47  Benedict  XIV,  Const.  Pastoralis  Curae ,  $1  ff;  Aug.  5,  1748;  FJC.  n. 

388;  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Normae  (1901),  art.  140;  S.  C.  De  Eel  “Cum 
de  Saeramentalibus,”  n.  1,  AAS,  V,  62. 

48  Boudinhon,  op.  cit.  p.  274;  Creusen  Eeligieux  et  Eeligieuses ,  n.  92; 

Sabetti,  Comp.  Th.  M.,  n.  778;  Vermeersch,  Per.  IX,  p.  (12);  Leit- 
ner,  Eandbuch  (Dritte  Lieferung)  p.  354;  Brandys,  Eechtsbuch, 
p.  153. 

4»  Bastien,  Directoire  Canonique,  n.  355. 
so  Vermeersch,  Per.  IX,  p.  12. 

5i  Fanfani,  De  Jure  Eel.,  n.  134;  Cocchi,  Commentarium  in  C.  I.  C.,  II, 
pars  II,  n.  39. 

62  S.  C.  EE  et  RR  in  Turritana  Feb.  1753;  Bizzarri,  p.  374;  cf.  Ver¬ 
meersch,  Per.  IX,  p.  (12)  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  222;  Papi,  Eeligious 
in  Church  Law,  p.  52. 

53  Bastien,  op.  cit.,  n.  355. 

54  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  591. 

53  Jus  de  Personis,  n.  257. 

•5G  Vermeersch,  Per.  IX,  p.  (12) ;  Papi,  op.  cit.,  p.  51;  Choupin,  Nature,  etc. 

VEtat  Eeligieux,  p.  222. 

57  Creusen,  Eeligieux  et  Eeligieuses,  n.  92. 


118 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


is  perfectly  justified  in  going  to  any  one  of  these  confessors 
unless  the  rules  or  constitutions  prescribe  otherwise. 

The  same  priest  can  be  ordinary  confessor  for  more  than 
one  community,58  nor  is  there  any  legal  prohibition  that  he  be 
extraordinary  confessor  of  another  community.59 

But  in  these  cases  a  new  approbation  is  required  for  each 
convent,  unless  he  is  given  general  faculties  for  all  nuns  of  the 
diocese  or  a  particular  order. 

Duty  of  the  Ordinary  Confessor. 

The  ordinary  confessor  is  to  hear  the  confessions  of  the 
community.  In  its  widest  embrace  the  community  includes  at 
the  most  those  enumerated  in  Canon  514,  §  1,  i.  e.,  the  servants, 
students,  sick  and  guests  staying  there  day  and  night.60  It 
may  happen  that  a  confessor  of  religious  will  not’  have  diocesan 
faculties  for  the  faithful,  e.  g.,  a  priest  from  another  diocese 
to  whom  are  given  the  faculties  to  hear  the  confessions  of  reli¬ 
gious  women  only.  If  he  has  faculties  only  for  the  one  commu¬ 
nity  to  which  he  is  appointed,  he  has  no  right  to  hear  the  con¬ 
fessions  of  another  community,  even  of  the  same  order.61 
Neither  could  he  hear  the  confessions  of  outsiders  or  religious 
of  the  same  order,  but  of  another  community  coming  to  him,63 
unless  their  approach  was  made  in  virtue  of  Canon  522  for  their 
peace  of  conscience.  On  the  other  hand,  if  they  are  there  day 
and  night,  they  become  the  guests  mentioned  in  Canon  514,  §  1, 
and  he  can  absolve  them  in  virtue  of  Canon  520  as  the  ordinary 
confessor  of  the  community.  If  the  bishop  had  granted,  as 


58  s.  C.  EE  et  RR.  Sept.  1,  1905;  Reply  to  the  Bishop  of  Havana,  ad  1 

et  4;  ASS  XXVIII,  p.  148;  cf.  Vermeersch,  Per ■  II,  n.  93. 

59  Vermeersch,  Per.  I,  p.  472;  Curran,  Confessors  and  Confessions  of  Be- 

ligious  Women  of  Simple  Vows,  p.  38. 
eo  For  full  explanation  of  those  included  in  Canon  514,  $  1  cf.  treatise 
on  Can.  518,  p.  1. 

6i  Clement  X,  Const.  Superna,  June  21,  1670;  $4;  FJC,  n.  246;  Inno¬ 
cent  XIII,  Const.  Apostolici  Ministerii,  May  23,  1723;  FJC,  n.  280, 
$19;  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Deer.  Tridentina,  ad  1;  Bizzarri,  Loc.  cit.; 
Aertnys,  Th.  M.,  II  (ed.  1906),  n.  234;  Marc,  Institutiones  Morales , 
(Ed.  1885)  II,  n.  1764. 

6*  S.  C.  EE  et  RR.  Tridentina,  Jan.  28,  1847  ad  1;  Bizzarri,  p.  116. 


Choice  and  Delegation  of  Confessors  119 

some  bishops  do,63  to  the  confessor  of  one  convent,  approbation 
for  all  convents  of  the  same  religious  order  or  for  all  religious 
women,  he  could,  on  the  first  presumption,  hear  the  confessions 
of  all  religious  of  the  order  who  come,  to  him  and  on  the  second 
hypothesis  all  religious  women  within  the  diocese  without  dis¬ 
tinction. 

The  ordinary  confessor  can,  moreover,  hear  the  sisters  of 
his'  community  if  they  are  outside  of  the  convent  lawfully.04 
He  can  do  this  only  within  the  limits  of  the  territory  of  the 
local  Ordinary,  who  delegated  him,  for  delegated  jurisdiction 
cannot  be  used  outside  of  these  limits.65 

In  regard  to  the  absolution  of  reserved  sins  and  censures 
incurred  by  the  religious  under  his  charge,  his  faculties  are 
exactly  the  same  as  for  the  faithful  in  general.66  Consequently, 
he  cannot  absolve  from  these  without  particular  mention  of 
that  power  by  the  bishop.  Being  ordinary  confessor  gives  him 
no  special  jurisdiction  in  these  matters.67 

The  ordinary  confessor  is  bound  to  go  to  the  convent  to 
hear  the  confessions  of  the  community  at  least  once  a  week  and 
give  them  the  opportunity  to  fulfill  their  obligation  of  weekly 
confession  according  to  Canon  595,  §  1,  3°,  and  their  consti¬ 
tutions.  He  can  always  insist  upon  a  fair  consideration  in 
this  matter,  but  he  should  arrange  for  a  time  to  perform  this 
office,  which  will  be  convenient  to  thei  community.  He  is  to  go 
to  the  community  also  whenever  he  is  reasonably  called  for  the 
purpose  of  hearing  confessions.68 

The  religious,  on  the  other  hand,  must  receive  the  confess¬ 
ors  appointed  for  them.69 

63  Decreta  Synodi  Hartfordensis  IV  (Connecticut  1887)  n.  96;  ibid.  Syn- 

odus  II,  n.  35;  Confessarius  autem  pro  uno  monialium  conventu  ap- 
probatus,  censetur  approbatus  pro  omnibus  ejusdem  ordinis  conven- 
tibus  in  nostra  dioecesi  existentibus,  ibique,  Bectore  quidem  non  in- 
scio,  confessiones  licite  audire  potest. 

64  s.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Tridentina,  Jan.  29,  1847  ad  2;  Bizzarri,  p.  116. 

65  Can.  873,  §  $1,  2. 

66  Vermeersch,  Per.  I,  p.  280. 

67  Curran,  op.  eit.,  p.  46. 

68  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Vallisoletana,  Apr.  4,  1704;  Bizzarri,  p.  287,  ad.  5. 

69  s.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Vallisoletana,  (reproposed),  March  12,  1705;  Biz¬ 

zarri,  p.  288. 


120  Confessors  of  Female  Religious 

The  Administration  of  the  Last  Sacraments. 

CANON  514. 

§  1.  In  omni  religione  clericali  ius  et  officium  Super- 
ioribus  est  per  se  vel  per  alium  aegrotis  professis,  novitiis, 
aliisve  in  religiosa  domo  diu  noctuque  degentibus  causa 
famulatus  aut  educationis  aut  hospitii  aut  infirmae  vale- 
tudinis,  Eucharisticum  Viaticum  et  extremam  unctionem 
ministrandi. 

§  2.  In  monialium  domo  idem  ius  et  officium  habet 
ordinarius  confessarius  vel  qui  eius  vices  gerit. 

Ini  houses  of  nuns  it  is  the  ordinary  confessor  who  has  the 
right  and  duty  of  ministering  the  last  sacraments  of  Viaticum 
and  Extreme  Unction,  or  the  one  who  takes  his  place.  For 
that  purpose  they  can  enter  the  cloister.70  This  refers  properly 
only  to  convents  of  nuns  of  solemn  vows,  or  those  equal  to  solemn 
vows,  i.  e.,  those  whose  vows  by  their  institute  are  solemn 
but  in  certain  places  by  prescription  of  the  Holy  See  are 
simple.71 

This  canon,  then,  does  not  apply  to  houses  of  sisters.72 

Therefore,  the  ordinary  confessor  and  his  substitute  have 
the  right  and  obligation  of  administering  the  last  sacraments 
not  only  to  the  professed  but  even  novices,  postulants73  and 
others,  staying  there  day  and  night.  In  the  latter  class  would 
be  included  female  servants,  students,  guests  and  patients74  who 
are  to  be  attended  by  the  confessor  and  not  the  parish  priests 
in  whose  parish  the  convent  is  situated.  Male  patients  and 
guests,  however,  would  not  be  included  because  of  the  cloister.75 

The  vice-gerent  of  the  ordinary  confessor  has  this  right  in 
the  absence  of  the  latter.  This  term  “vice-gerent”  applies  pri- 


70  Can.  600,  $  3°. 

71  Can.  488,  7°.;  cf.  Augustine  III,  p.  145. 

72  Fanfani,  De  Jure  Bel.,  n.  416. 

73  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  201,  dubium  II. 

74  For  those  who  are  included  cf.  treatment  on  Canon  518. 

75  Augustine,  op.  cit.  Ill,  p.  144;  Fanfani,  loc.  cit. 


Choice  and  Delegation  of  Confessors 


121 


marily  to  the  substitute  for  the  ordinary  confessor  who  has 
been  appointed  by  the  local  Ordinary  but  not  exclusively  to  him 
as  Father  Papi  claims.70  These  words  vices  gerit  apply  equally 
to  all  confessors  of  religious  women,  except  the  one  in  Canon 
522, 77  and  all  those  who  substitute  for  him  not  only  in  the  office 
of  hearing  confession  but  even  in  any  of  the  other  functions 
attached  to  his  office.  Therefore,  it  could  be  the  chaplain  in 
the  absence  of  the  appointed  substitute  or  any  priest  whatso¬ 
ever'  in  the  absence  of  all  others  and  in  a  case  of  necessity.78 

The  confessor  is  the  one  to  assist  the  dying  religious,  just  as 
the  pastor  for  his  parishioners.79  In  communities  of  sisters 
the  pastor  of  the  place  has  this  right  and  duty  of  administering 
the  last  sacraments  and  assisting  the  dying  or  the  chaplain 
whom  the  Ordinary  has  made  equal  to  the  pastor,80  as  is  done  in 
Belgium.81 

The  Ordinary  can,  for  a  just  and  grave  reason,  exempt 
totally  or  partially  religious  families  and  pious  houses,  which 
are  in  parochial  territory1  and  not  exempt  a  jure  from  the  care 
of  the  pastor.82  If  this  is  done,  the  pastor  should  be  notified  by 
the  Ordinary  and  he  cannot  interfere  in  the  administration  of 
the  last  Sacraments  by  the  chaplain.83  Salesian  Sisters,  engaged 
in  education  before  the  Code,  asked  exemption,  but  it  was  con¬ 
sidered  inexpedient.84  More  probably,  the  sisters  in  seminaries 
are  exempt  from  the  jurisdiction  of  the  pastor  and  dependent 


76  Beligious  in  Church  Law,  p.  146. 

77  cf.  treatment  on  canon  522. 

78  Can.  844,  $2;  938,  $2;  Creusen,  Beligieux  et  Beligieuses,  n.  120;  Fan- 

fani,  op.  cit.,  n.  416. 

79  S.  C.  De  Rel.  Feb.  6,  1924;  AAS  XVI,  p.  96-101. 

so  Can.  514,  $  3 — In  alia  religione  laicali  hoc  jus  et  officium  spectat  ad 
parochum  loci  vel  ad  cappellanum  quern  Ordinarius  parocho  suffecerit 
ad  norman  can.  464,  $2;  Bastien,  op.  cit.  n.  290. 

81  Creusen,  op.  cit.  n.  120. 

82  Can.  462,  $2;  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  II,  n.  581. 

83  Augustine  III,  p.  145. 

8*  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Apr.  19,  1844;  Bizzarri,  p.  497.  cf.  Augustine  III, 
p.  145. 


122 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


upon  the  rector  of  the  seminary  in  these  matters.85  They  can 
be  considered  as  a  part  of  the  family  of  the  seminary.86 

Dwelling  of  Ordinary  Confessor. 

The  cloister  discipline  of  the  old  law,  required  that  the 
confessor  live  in  a  house  separated  from  the  monastery  of  the 
nuns.87  But  this  was  mitigated  by  the  Normae  of  190188  and 
the  Dei  Providential  issued  in  1906  by  the  Congregation  of 
Bishops  and  Regulars  for  congregations  of  simple  vows.  The 
only  requirement  being  that  the  entrance  to  the  dwelling  of  the 
confessor  be  a  separate  one  from  that  of  the  house  of  the  sisters 
and  that  between  the  convent  and  the  confessor ’s  dwelling  there 
must  be  no  communication  passage.90 

Salary  of  Ordinary  Confessor. 

The  bishop  should  assign  the  ordinary  confessor  of  each 
convent  or  community  of  religious  an  annual  salary,  sufficient 
to  support  him  in  a  befitting  manner.  The  amount  to  be  given 
should  be  determined  from  the  customs  of  the  place  and  the  re¬ 
sources  of  the  community.91  This  canonical  rule  is,  of  course, 
founded  on  the  presumption  that  the  office  of  ordinary  confessor 
requires  so  much  attention  that  it  would  not  permit  him  to  as¬ 
sume  any  other  office  no  matter  of  how  little  importance.92 

Such  a  condition  will  seldom  occur  in  our  country.  In  the 


85  Can.  1368. 

88  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  417. 

87  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  in  Arimen,  Jan.  22,  1576;  Aug.  19,  1578;  Jan.  2, 

1579;  Jan.  22,  1593;  in  Bononien,  May  3,  1593;  in  Januen,  Nov.  14, 

1603;  in  Mantuana,  Nov.  22,  1604;  cf.  Ferraris,  Bibliotheca  Prompta, 
V.  Moniales,  V,  n.  68,  p.  1109;  Alexander  VII,  Const.  Felice.  Get. 
20,  1664,  $7;  FJC,  n.  240. 

88  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  June  28;  art.  178. 

89  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  July  16,  1906;  cf.  Vermeersch,  Per.,  II,  n.  133. 

90  Mothon,  Traite  de  la  Confession  Sacramentelle,  p.  18  tf;  Bastien, 

Directoire  Canonique,  n.  370. 

91  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Nov.  29,  1659;  Ferraris,  op.  cit.,  v.  Moniales  V,  n.  70; 

Barbosa,  Jus  Ecclesiasticnm  Universum,  (ed.  London,  1718)  t.  I,  p. 
661,  n.  139;  Pellizarius,  Tractatio  De  Monialibus,  Ch.  X,  n.  176,  ed. 
Venice,  1651,  p.  440). 

92  Mothon,  loc.  cit. 


Choice  and  Delegation  of  Confessors 


123 


United  States  the  confessors  are  generally  priests  engaged  in 
other  duties,  who  go  to  hear  the  confessions  of  religious  only  at 
stated  intervals. 

The  salary  must  not  be  paid  in  food,  clothing,  furniture  or 
presents  of  any  kind,  but  only  in  money.  This  rule  is  to  be 
observed  for  all  confessors,  whether  of  the  secular  or  religious 
clergy.93  The  giving  of  presents  to  the  confessor  by  the  reli¬ 
gious,  whether  in  their  own  name  or  that  of  the  community  and 
even  with  the  consent  of  the  superioress,  was  condemned.94 

These  rules  were  made  for  nuns  of  solemn  vows.  They 
can  be  applied,  moreover,  to  all  modern  institutes  of  women 
religious  or  to  communities  of  women  without  vows  and  even 
to  oblates,  provided  the  same  motives  demand  their  applica¬ 
tion.95 

Article  III. 

Term  of  Office  of  the  Ordinary  Confessor. 

The  Council  of  Trent  prescribed  that  an  ordinary  confessor 
be  given  to  nuns,96  but  did  not  determine  in  any  way  the  dura¬ 
tion  of  his  office.  It  was  the  Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regu¬ 
lars97  that  for  the  first  time  on  March  4,  1591, 98  restricted  his 
office  to  the  period  of  three  years.  This  was  done  to  remove  an 
abuse  which  had  grown  up  in  the  town  of  Como  of  the  ordinary 
confessor,  holding  this  office  for  life.  The  three-year  term  was 
thereafter,  the  constant  norm,  as  is  evident  from  the  consistent 
replies  of  this  congregation,  which  claimed  for  this  term  the 


93  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  in  una  Bononien,  June  19,  1601;  in  Januen.,  Jan.  28, 

1603;  Becanaten,  Apr.  19,  1624;  cf.  Ferraris,  loc.  cit.,  n.  71,  72; 
Pignatelli,  Consultationes  Canonicae,  VII,  con.  85,  n.  20;  Pellizarius, 
loc.  cit.,  n.  176;  Bizzarri,  p.  387;  An  J.  P.,  Serie  IX,  col.  570. 

94  Clement  VIII,  Const.  Beligiosae  Congregationes,  July  19,  1594,  FJC, 

n.  178;  Urban  VIII,  Const.  Nuper  a  Congregatione,  Oct.  16,  1640; 
FJC,  n.  178;  Alexander  VII,  Const.  Sacrosancti,  Jan.  18,  1658; 
FJC,  n.  235,  $  2. 

95  Mothon,  op.  cit.  p.  20;  also  Etat  Beligieux,  art.  190,  p.  282  ff. 

96  Sess.  XXV.,  De  Begularibus  et  Monialibus,  c.  10;  cf.  Ehses,  Concilium 

Tridentinum,  IX,  p.  1082. 

97  AKKR,  79,  p.  467. 

98  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  in  Comen.;  Cf.  Bizzarri,  p.  12. 


i24 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


approval  of  Gregory  XIV  99  in  its  decrees.100  Those  who  heard 
confessions  of  nuns  after  the  termination  of  the  three  years 
without  permission  of  the  congregation,  were  to  be  declared 
suspended  from  the  office  of  hearing  confessions.101 

This  prescription  held  at  first  only  for  nuns  of  solemn  vows 
and  was  later  extended  to  women  of  simple!  vows,102  whether  of 
papal  approval  or  not.  It  applied  to  all  institutes  for  the  com¬ 
munities  of  which  an  ordinary  confessor  had  been  appointed 
since  abuses  in  this  matter  could  as  easily  arise  for  them  as  for 
nuns  of  solemn  vows.  The  difference  between  communities  of 
nuns  and  those  of  simple  vows  was  that  when  the  latter  were 
without  a  cloister  there  was  no  obligation  on  the  bishop  to 
appoint  an  ordinary  confessor.  The  members  of  such  commu¬ 
nities  could  confess  to  any  approved  priest.  When,  however, 
the  bishop  did  appoint  one,  the  same  difficulties  arose.103 

With  the  enormous  increase  of  institutes  bearing  the  name 
of  conservatories  of  women  and  virgins  in  the  17th  century, 
this  triennial  rule  was  applied  to  their  confessors.104  More¬ 
over,  the  continued  and  rapid  multiplication  of  communities 
of  simple  vows  required  frequent  approvals  of  this  rule  by  the 
Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regulars.105 

Finally  this  rule  was  given  also  to  societies  of  women  living 
in  community,  having  an  ordinary  confessor.106  The  only  relief 
from  this  law  was  by  dispensation  to  reaffirm  for  a  term  or 
two.107 

»9  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Veronen,  Feb.  15,  1593;  Bizzarri,  loc.  cit.;  Boudinhon, 
CC,  36,  p.  270. 

100  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Neapolitana,  Nov.  26,  1602;  Bizzarri,  p.  13;  Mech- 

linen,  March  10,  1634;  ibidTl).  24;  Sept.  2,  1617,  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F. 
(Ed.  1S93)  n.  427.  AKKR  100,  p.  468;  In  Eagusina  Oct.  2,  1626; 
March  27,  1647  and  elsewhere,  ef.  Ferraris,  v.  Moniales,  V,  p.  1099  ff. 

101  Ferraris,  loc.  cit. 

102  Battandier,  Guide  Canonique,  (ed.  1923)  n.  250. 

103  Joder,  Beichtvatcramt  in  Frauenklostern ;  AKKR,  79,  469. 

104  s.  C.  EE  et  RR,  March  18,  1649,  July  25,  1655;  Joder,  AKKR  79,  470. 
103  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  To  Bishop  of  Brescia,  June  1815,  Analecta  Juris 

Pontificii,  L.  30;  1829,  ibid;  March  16,  1840;  ibid;  Jan.  16,  1864, 
ibid,  series  9,894;  cf.  Joder,  AKKR,  47,  p.  470. 
ioo  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Oregonopolitana,  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1907),  n.  1446, 
ad  2. 

107  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Tridentina,  Jan.  20,  1847,  ad  3;  Bizzarri,  p.  116. 


Choice  and  Delegation  of  Confessors 


125 


In  1865  it  was  demanded  that  this  be  added  to  the  rules.108 

This  law  was  reiterated  by  the  decree  “  Quemadmodum”  of 
Leq  XIII  in  18  90, 109  and  in  the  decree  “Cum  de  Sacramentali- 
bus,  ”  Feb.  3,  1913,  edited  by  the  same  congregation,110  in  which 
all  past  legislation  on  this  matter  was  summed  up  and  is  prac¬ 
tically  presented  in  the  same  way  by  the  Code. 

CANON  526. 

Religiosarum  confessarius  ordinarius  suum  munus 
ne  exerceat  ultra  triennium;  Ordinarius  tamen  eum  ad 
secundum,  imo  etiam  ad  tertium  triennium  confirmare 
potest,  si  vel  ob  sacerdotum  ad  hoc  officium  idoneorum 
penuriam  aliter  providere  nequeat,  vel  maior  religios- 
arum  pars,  earum  quoque  quae  in  aliis  negotiis  ius  non 
habent  ferendi  suffragium,  in  eiusdem  confessarii  con- 
firmationem,  per  secret  a  suffragia,  convenerit;  dissentien- 
tibus  tamen,  si  velint,  aliter  providendum  est. 

Communities  in  Which  This  Law  Binds 

The  application  of  this  law  gives  some  difficulty  for  al¬ 
though  the  word  religiosarum  is  used  without  distinction  there 
are  some  communities  not  bound  to  the  observance  of  this  law. 
The  prescription  of  the  triennial  change  of  the  ordinary  con¬ 
fessor  applies  not  only  to  nuns  having  solemn  vows,  but  also 
to  sisters  of  simple  vows,* * 111  and  even  school  sisters  or  hospital 
sisters,  if  they  live  in  community  and  have  a  definite  confes¬ 
sor.112 

It  is  certain  that  the  larger  institutes  having  their  own 


108  s.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Aug.  5,  1865,  An.  JP  series  9,  p.  893;  ad  7;  June 
16,  1876,  to  the  Nuns  of  the  Abandoned  Poor ,  AKKR,  79,  p.  471; 
Battandier,  op.  cit.,  n.  250. 

loo  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Dec.  17,  1890,  ad  4;  col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1907),  n.  1745. 
no  AAS  V,  62,  n.  2. 

111  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  June  1815,  An.  JP,  lib.  30;  1829  ibid;  1841  ibid; 

1864,  ibid;  1865  ad  7,  An.  JP,  series  9,  893;  1876  June,  AKKR,  97, 
p.  471;  cf.  Battandier,  Guide  Canonique,  n.  250. 

112  S.  C.  Prop.  Fide,  to  the  Vicar  of  Egypt,  Feb.  20,  1877;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F. 

(Ed.  1893),  n.  437;  AKKR,  79,  p.  471. 


126 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


chapel  and  confessor  are  bound  absolutely  by  this  rule 113 
regardless  of  the  fact  that  the  religious  are  transferred  fre¬ 
quently  from  one  house  to  another,  such  as  sisters  of  Charity 
serving  in  hospitals  114  or  educating  the  youth.115 

The  frequent  transfer  of  the  personnel  of  an  institute  does 
not  prohibit  the  observance  of  the  three-year  law  by  all  houses.110 

In  those  institutes  in  which  the  sisters  confess  in  their  own 
chapel,  although  Mass  is  said  not  by  the  confessor  but  by  another 
priest  if  the  former  is  the  one  to  whom  they  must  all  confess  he 
is  the  ordinary  confessor  and  can  only  perform  this  office  for 
three  years.  The  three-year  law  holds  only  for  the  ordinary 
confessor  who  goes  to  the  convent,  conservatory  or  any  other 
place  in  which  a  number  of  women  lead  a  community  life,  for 
the  purpose  of  hearing  their  confessions.117 

In  some  parishes  there  may  be  two  or  three  school  sisters, 
■who  live  in  community  outside  of  the  cloister,  but  have  not  their 
own  chapel.  If  an  ordinary  confessor  has  not  been  appointed 
for  them  they  can  frequent  the  parish  church  for  Mass  and 
reception  of  the  Sacraments  of  Penance  and  Eucharist.  To  the 
confessor  of  these  sisters,  even  if  he  be  the  only  priest  in  the 
parish,  i.  e.,  the  pastor,  the  three-year  law  is  not  to  be  applied. 
These  sisters  can  confess  outside  of  their  house  to  any  confes¬ 
sor  approved  by  the  local  ordinary.118 

Shorter  Terms. 

Another  difficulty  arises  in  regard  to  the  constitutions  of 
a  community  prescribing  a  shorter  term  than  the  code,  e.  g., 
the  term  of  office  of  the  ordinary  confessor  of  the  Dominican 


113  Joder,  AKKR,  ibid. 

in  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Tridentina,  ad  3;  Jan.  27,  1847;  Bizzarri,  p.  116. 
ns  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Oregonopolitana,  ad  2;  June  20,  1875;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F. 

(ed.  1907),  n.  1446. 
lie  Joder,  AKKR,  79,  472. 

H7  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  To  Archbishop  of  Oregon  City,  July  20,  1887;  Col. 
S.  C.  P.  F.  (Ed.  1893),  n.  436;  (ed.  1907),  n.  1384.  AKKR, 
79,  472. 

118  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  to  Archbishop  of  Oregon,  Apr.  22,  1872,  ad  3;  Col. 
S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1893),  n.  433;  (ed.  1907)  n.  1384. 


Choice  and  Delegation  of  Confessors 


127 


sisters  is  two  years.119  But  the  Code  only  prohibits  terms  of 
office  which  are  longer  than  three  years  and  not  those  which 
are  less.  Therefore  these  constitutions,  whether  they  have  papal 
or  only  episcopal  approbation  are  not  abrogated  by  the  present 
code  since  they  are  not  opposed  to  it 120  as  is  evident  from 
Canons  520,  525,  §  2  and  526,  which  treat  of  the  term  of  office 
of  the  ordinary  confessor,  and  contain  no  clause  abrogating 
shorter  terms.  Since  the  purpose  of  the  Code  is  to  limit  an  ex¬ 
cessive  length  of  time  in  office  and  not  to  restrict  the  terms  as 
such,  and  even  gives  the  bishop  the  right  in  certain  circumstances 
to  reappoint  for  a  total  of  nine  years  continued  service,  it  seems 
that  on  the  same  grounds  the  ordinary  confessor  could  serve  nine 
successive  years  of  lesser  terms  as  prescribed  by  the  constitu¬ 
tions.121 

Cessation  of  Office 

The  office  of  the  ordinary  confessor  ceases  according  to  the 
prescription  of  Canon  34,  §  3,  2°,  on  the  beginning  of  the  re¬ 
curring  day  upon  which  it  began. 

Therefore,  the  ordinary  confessor’s  term  ceases  at  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  the  day  of  the  same  date  upon  which  he  received  his 
faculties  to  act  as  ordinary  confessor  three  years  before.122 

Questions. 

I.  The  question  then  arises  as  to  the  validity  and  liceity  of 
confessions  heard  and  absolutions  given  by  the  ordinary  con¬ 
fessor  after  the  three-year  term  is  ended  and  without  further 


no  Constitutiones  Fratrum  S.  Ordinis  Praedicatorum  (Paris  1886),  Dist. 
II,  c.  Ill,  n.  730,  “Confessarii  monialium  .  .  .  ultra  biennium  in 
officio  suo  non  perdurent.”  cf.  Lucidi,  De  Visitatione  SS.  Liminum , 
II,  n.  148,  p.  187;  Shafer,  Ordensrecht,  p.  119;  Leitner,  llandbuch, 
p.  361. 

120  Can.  489.  Eegulae  et  particulares  constitutiones  singularium  religionum , 

canonibus  hujus  Codicis  non  contrariae ,  vim  suam  servant ;  quae  vero 
eisdem  opponuntur,  abrogatae  sunt. 

121  cf.  Curran,  Confessors  and  Confessions  of  Eeligious  Women  of  Simple 

Vows,  p.  42. 

122  Brandys,  Kirchliches  Eechtsbuch,  p.  161 ;  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  134. 


128 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


approbation.  The  Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regulars  de¬ 
clared  such  confessions  to  be  valid  but  the  exercise  of  this  min¬ 
istry  illicit.123 

Confessors  Exempt  from  This  Law. 

This  law  does  not  apply :  I,  to  the  extraordinary  confessor 
of  the  community  ;124  II,  to  the  supplementary  confessors  of  the 
community  (Can.  521,  §  2),  for  the  canon  refers  explicitly  to 
the  ordinary  confessor  only ;  III,  to  the  special  ordinary  con¬ 
fessor  given  to  an  individual  religious  (Can.  520,  §  2),  whether 
given  to  one  or  many  religious,  for  his  office  lasts  as  long  as  the 
spiritual  necessity  or  utility  of  the  religious  requires  ;125  IV,  to 
the  pastor  or  priest  to  whom  the  religious  of  their  own  choice 
confess  habitually  in  a  church  ;126  V,  to  the  confessors  of  female 
novices  if  they  have  their  own  distinct  confessor  for  the  term  of 
noviceship  would  be  two  years  at  the  most,127  so  that  the  same 
priest  would  not  be  the  ordinary  confessor  for  the  same  per¬ 
sons  for  a  full  three-year  term;128  VI,  to  confessors  of  girls  in 
conservatories  or  women  in  homes.129 

Reappointment  to  the  Same  Office. 

The  religious  under  the  old  law  had  to  receive  for  the  first 
term  the  confessor  appointed  for  them  by  their  superiors.130 

123  s.  c.  EE  et  RR,  June  20,  1875,  ad  3,  Oregonopolitana  ;  Cf.  Col.  S.  C. 

P.  F.  (ed.  1893),  n.  436;  (ed.  1907)  u.  1446:  cf.  Aug.  24,  1868, 
AKKR,  79,  p.  476. 

124  Shafer,  Ordensrecht,  p.  120;  Cocchi,  II  pars  II  n.  46. 

125  S.  C.  de  Rel.  Apr.  22,  1917;  Vermeersch,  Per.  VIII,  n.  119,  p.  229,  230 

( Annotationes )  cf.  Brandys,  Rechtsbuch,  p.  162. 

126  s.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Majarien  et  Civitatis  Plebis,  Dec.  7,  1906,  ad  5; 

Vermeersch,  Per.  I,  n.  172;  ibid.  Ill,  n.  652;  Choupin,  Recents 
Decrets,  p.  43. 

127  Can.  555,  566;  Leitner,  Handbuch  p.  119;  One  cannot  agree  with  Dr. 

W.  Grosam  (L.Q.S.  73,  p.  317)  that  they  should  be  bound  to  this 
law.  The  main  purpose  of  the  law  is  not  as  he  says  that  a  con¬ 
fessor  might  not  get  a  fast  hold  on  the  community  and  its  traditions, 
etc.,  but  that  these  religious  have  variety  of  confessors.  This  is 
sufficiently  obtained  by  the  fact  that  they  must  leave  the  novitiate 
after  two  years  at  the  most. 

128  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  591. 

120  s.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Dec.  7,  1906;  Vermeersch,  Per.  Ill,  n.  172;  cf.  Bastion, 
op.  cit.,  n.  366,  as  was  explicitly  decided  before  the  Code. 

130  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Vallisoletana,  March  12,  1705  (re-proposed  case  of  Apr. 
4,  1705)  Bizzarri,  p.  288. 


Choice  and  Delegation  of  Confessors  129 

Later  they  could,  for  sufficient  reason,  i.  e.,  discord  or  dislike 
for  the  one  appointed,  etc.,  present  their  reasons  to  the  Con¬ 
gregation  of  Bishops  and  Regulars  which  would  remove  him 
directly.  To  guard  this  freedom  the  power  was  withdrawn 
from  the  bishops  of  appointing  a  confessor  for  longer 
than  three  years.  Approval  for  the  second  term  was 
reserved  to  the  Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regulars 
and  for  the  third  to  the  Pope  himself.131  These  indults  of  re¬ 
appointment  were  generally  given  to  bishops  for  only  one  oc¬ 
casion  and  seldom  for  a  full  year  and  always  with  the  express 
command  that  the  rules  of  the  Congregation  of  Bishops  and 
Regulars  were  to  be  followed.132  The  condition  for  re-appoint¬ 
ment  under  indult  was  that  for  the  second  term  the  consent  of 
two-thirds  of  the  religious  in  secret  ballot  was  required.  For  the 
third  term  unanimous  consent  was  demanded.133 

This  discipline  was  greatly  mitigated  by  the  decree  of  the 
Congregation  for  Religious  of  Feb.  3,  1913,  “Cum  De  Sacramen- 
talibus,  ’  ’ 134  which  gave  to  the  bishop  the  right  to  reappoint 
for  a  second  and  third  successive  term  without  an  indult.  This 
is  also  the  law  of  the  Code. 

Sufficient  Cause  for  Reappointment . 

They  are  comprised  in  the  following  two,  each  of  which  is 
sufficient  reason  of  itself  and  their  concomitant  existence  is 
not  required.135 

I.  If  there  is  a  dearth  of  suitable  priests  for  the  office  and 
the  bishop  cannot  otherwise  provide  for  the  need,  reappointment 


131  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Jan.  16,  1864;  Aug.  1865,  ad  7,  to  the  Sisters  of 

Christian  Charity ;  quoted  by  Joder,  AKKR,  79,  p.  471;  cf.  An. 
JP,  lib.  80,  81.  " 

132  Joder,  loc.  cit. 

133  Bizzarri,  p.  13,  footnote  1. 

134  s.  C.  De  Rel. ;  AAS  V,  52,  ad  2. 

135  Mothon,  Traite  de  la  Confession  Sacramentelle,  p.  14;  Choupin,  L’Etat 

Religicux  p.  235;  Brandys,  Bechtsbuch  p.  162. 


130 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


can  be  made  in  such  conditions,  even  ifj  the  religious  do  not  re¬ 
quest  his  maintenance  in  office.  The  previous  vote  of  the  religious 
is  not  required.136  The  words  of  the  decree  “Cum  De 
Sacramentalibus”  rursus  eligi  ut  ordinarius  137  seemed  to  some 
to  imply  that  the  vote  of  community  was  necessary  for  the  re¬ 
appointment  even  in  cases  of  dearth  of  suitable  priests,138  but 
the  Code  has  settled  this  by  using  the  words  rursus  deputari  and 
confirmari  and  also  by  the  correlative  vel,  vel ,  clauses  of  Canons 
524  and  526,  §  2,  showing  plainly  that  either  reason  suffices. 
Therefore  election  by  the  community  is  not  necessary  where 
there  is  a  lack  of  suitable  priests. 

The  bishop  is  not  authorized  to  reappoint  for  this  reason 
unless  there  is  physical  or  moral  impossibility  of  supplying  the 
lack  of  priests  in  any  other  way  than  by  the  continuing  the  same 
confessor  in  office.139 

This  may  occur  even  when  the  bishop  has  many  priests  at 
his  disposal  if  they  lack  the  requirements  necessary  for  the 
confessor  of  religious  women.140 

II.  When  the  majority  of  the  religious  request  the  confes¬ 
sor’s  retention.  This  concession  was  first  given  by  the  decree 
“Cum  de  Sacramentalibus. ”  141  Thus,  the  former  requirements 
of  an  indult  together  with  the  two-third  vote  for  the  second,  and 
the  unanimous  vote  for  the  third  appointment  were  done  away 
with.  Now  all  that  is  required  is  the  vote  of  the  absolute  ma¬ 
jority,  i.  e.,  one  more  than  half  the  number  of  those  voting, 
and  not  a  relative  majority,  i.  e.,  a  plurality  of  votes,  since  it 
is  a  question  here  of  only  voting  “yes”  or  “no. ” 142  The  right 
of  voting  is  extended  in  this  matter  not  only  to  those  who  in 


136  Mothon,  loc.  cit.;  Choupin,  loc.  cit. 

137  Art.  11;  AAS  V,  p.  63. 

138  Vermeerseh,  Per.  VII,  p.  92. 

139  Nouvelle  Eevue  Theologique,  1913,  p.  128;  quoted  by  Choupin,  loc.  cit.; 

p.  236. 

140  Cf.  chapter  on — Qualities  of  Confessors;  Curran,  op.  cit.,  p.  43; 

Bastien,  op.  cit.  n.  366;  Cocchi,  II  pars  II  n.  46. 

141  AAS  V,  52. 

142  cf.  Can.  101,  $1.  Mothon,  op.  cit.  p.  15;  Choupin,  L}Etat  Eeligieux, 

p.  246;  Bastien,  Directoire  Canonique ,  n.  366. 


Choice  and  Delegation  of  Confessors 


131 


other  affairs  have  the  right  of  suffrage  but  all  others  who  are 
affected  by  it  as  individuals  “ Quod  omnes  tangii,  debet  ab 
omnibus  approbari,”143  Reg.  29,  RJ  in  VI. °  This  includes  besides 
nuns  of  solemn  vows ;  those  religious  of  institutes  of  solemn  vows 
who  have  only  simple  vows ;  not  only  the  professed  but  lay  sis¬ 
ters  ;144  and  according  to  some  even  novices.145 

It  is  true  that  novices  are  included  if  they  have  no  confes¬ 
sor  of  their  own  and  confess  to  the  ordinary  confessor  of  the 
professed.  If  on  the  other  hand  they  have  their  own  distinct 
confessor  since  they  can  hardly  come  under  the  name  of  rein 
gious,  they  are  not,  it  seems,  included  by  the  canon.146  In  con¬ 
gregations  in  which  the  religious  are  being  constantly  changed 
from  one  house  to  another  the  right  of  suffrage  belongs  to  those 
who  are  actually  living  in  the  house  when  the  third’  year  of  the 
confessor’s  term  is  completed.147 

The  vote  is  to  be  determined  by  secret  ballot 148  upon  which 
it  is  not  necessary  to  place  a  signature  or'  the  motive  for  voting. 
Those  wrho  can  not  write  can  give  their  vote  orally  or  signify 
their  approval  with  an  X  or  some  similar  sign.149  To  eliminate 
all  these  difficulties  the  common  custom  of  using  a  white  ball 
to  signify  assent  and  a  black  one  for  rejection  is  by  far  the 
better  system.150  The  dissenting  minority  must  be  provided 
for  in  some  other  way.  If  they  consent  spontaneously  to  ac¬ 
cept  the  ordinary  confessor  again  the  difficulty  ceases.  If  on 
the  other  hand  they  persist  in  their  desire  to  have  another  con¬ 
fessor,  the  local  Ordinary  must  make  sufficient  provision  for 
them.  It  is  to  be  noted  however  that  it  is  the  bishop  who  ap¬ 
points  the  confessor  and  despite  the  vote  he  has  the  right  to 

143  Can.  101,  §2;  Blat.  II,  pars  II,  n.  589. 

144  Blat,  loc.  cit.;  Shafer,  Ordensrecht,  p.  119. 

145  Choupin,  loc.  cit. 

140  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  591;  Bastien,  loc.  cit. 

147  s.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Apr.  22,  1872,  ad  2;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1893), 

n.  433;  AKKR,  79,  p.  480. 

148  The  method  of  procedure  is  described  in  Canon  171. 

143  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  236  ff. 

150  Brandys?  BechUbuch,  p.  162. 


132 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


appoint  him  or  not  as  he  sees  fit.  The  vote  makes  the  reappoint¬ 
ment  possible  but  not  obligatory.151 

Appointment  for  a  fourth  consecutive  term,  even  if  the 
sisters  desire  it  and  the  bishop  thinks  it  necessary,  can  not  be 
made  without  dispensation  or  indult  from  the  Congregation  of 
Religious.  Such  an  indult  was  required  by  the  old  law  for  the 
second  and  third  term.152  Such  an  indult  was  granted  Septem* 
ber  2,  1913,  to  the  bishops  of  Belgium.  By  virtue  of  this  indult 
they  could  for  five  years  confirm  the  ordinary  confessors  of 
sisters  for  the  length  of  time  which  seemed  suitable  to  them.  The 
vote  of  the  sisters  in  this  case  was  necessary.153  These  bishops 
were  required  on  the  other  hand  to  preserve  all  other  conditions 
necessary  for  the  liberty  of  conscience  of  the  religious.  On  No¬ 
vember  23,  1922,  quinquennial  faculties  were  given  to  the  dio¬ 
cese  of  Tours  154  to  continue  the  confessor  in  office  but  the  vote 
of  the  religious  was  required.  The  Congregation  of  Religious 
also  gave  to  American  Bishops  the  faculty  to  confirm  for  a 
fourth  and  fifth  term,  with  the  consent  of  the  religious  pro¬ 
vided  the  minority  do  not  object.  This  can  be  determined 
by  another  ballot.  If  they  still  object,  the  bishop  must  give  them 
another  confessor.155  These  episcopal  faculties  hold  only  for  five 
years,  from  one  quinquennial  report  to  another. 

B.  Reappointment  after  a  Lapse  of  a  Year. 

Before  the  code  the  legislator  wishing  to  assure  a  certain 
variety  of  confessors  for  a  community  formulated  practical  di- 


151  Boudinhon,  C.  C.,  36,  p.  273;  Brandys,  op.  cit.,  p.  162. 

152  Benedict  XIV,  Const.  Pastoralis  Curae,  Aug.  5,  1748,  $  1;  FJC,  n.  388; 

S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  June  27,  1815;  An.  JP,  lib.  30;  Jan.  16,  1864, 
An.  JP,  series,  9,  p.  894;  Aug.  5,  1865,  ad  7;  June  16,  1876;  all 
quoted  by  Joder,  AKKR,  79,  p.  470.  ff. ;  cf.  Shafer,  Ordensrecht, 
p.  120;  Brapdys,  loc.  cit.;  Cocchi,  II,  pars  II,  46;  Fanfani,  op.  cit. 
n.  134. 

153  Vermeersch,  Per.  VII,  n.  745. 

154  Creusen,  Eeligieux  et  Eeligieuses ,  n.  99. 

155  Hilling,  Supplementum,  p.  48, 


Choice  and  Delegation  of  Confessors 


133 


rections  in  its  reply  to  the  Bishop  of  Mazzara,  Sicily.156  This 
reply  stated  that  there  must  be  an  interval  of  a  complete  year 
from  the  termination  of  the  office  of  ordinary  confessor  before 
he  could  become  extraordinary  confessor  for  the  same  commun¬ 
ity  except  in  the  case  of  dearth  of  priests.  Nor  could  he  re¬ 
main  as  the  particular  ordinary  confessor  of  those  nuns  who  did 
not  want  to  go  to  the  other  confessor,157  except  the  nun  was  in 
danger  of  death,  or  she  refused  to  confess  to  the  other  confessor, 
or  if  she  asked  for  him  for  the  peace  of  her  conscience  or  greater 
progress  in  the  spiritual  life.158 

The  decree  “Cum  de  Sacramentalibus  ”  in  the  eleventh 
article  presented  the  same  law  as  is  now  reproduced  verbatim  in 
Can.  526,  524,  §  2. 


CANON  524. 

§  2.  Confessarius  ordinarius  non  potest  renuntiari 
extraordinarius  nee,  praeter  casus  in  Can.  526  recensitos, 
rursus  deputari  ordinarius  in  eadem  communitate,  nisi 
post  annum  ab  expleto  munere;  extraordinarius  vero  im¬ 
mediate  ut  ordinarius  renuntiari  potest. 

If  the  reasons  considered  above  of  dearth  of  priests  or  the 
request  of  the  sisters  do  not  exist  then  the  ordinary  contessor 
can  only  be  reappointed  to  the  same  office  or  to  that  of  extraordi¬ 
nary  confessor  in  the  same  community  after  the  lapse  of  a  year 
from  the  completion  of  his  office.  But  there  is  nothing  to  pre- 

156  g.  c.  EE  et  RR,  Majarien  et  Civitatis  Plebis,  Dec.  7,  1906; 

2.  Puo  un  confessore  ordinario,  spirato  il  triennio,  mandarsi  dal 
Yescovo  nella  stessa  Communita  religiosa  come  straordinario  bis  vel 
ter  in  anno  a  norma  del  Tridentino?  ( Sess .  XXV ,  c.  10,  De 
Begularibus). 

Besp.  ad  2. — Negative  antequam  annus  ab  exspiratione  triennii 
elapsus  fuerit,  excepto  casu  quo  ob  penuriam  confessariorum  Ordi¬ 
narius  aliter  procedere  nequeat ;  Vermeersch,  Per.  Ill,  n.  172; 
Boudinhon,  C  C,  36,  339. 

157  Ibid;  Q.3;  Puo  tollerarsi  che  un  confessore  ordinario,  spirato  il  triennio, 

resti  confessore  abituale,  ossia  straordinario  particulari  di  talune 
monache,  perche  esse  non  vogliono  confessarsi  con  altri? 

Resp.  ad  3 — Negative  exceptis  casibus  de  quibus  in  primo  dubio. 
(i.  e.  the  case  specified  in  the  constitution  “Pastoralis  Curae,”  of 
Benedict  XIV.) 

158  Benedict  XIV,  Const.  Pastoralis  Curae,  Aug.  5,  1748;  FJC,  n.  388,' 


134 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


vent  his  becoming  ordinary  confessor  of  another  community 
immediately  afterwards.159 

The  full  year  is  to  be  determined  from  the  prescriptions  of 
Canon  34.  Therefore,  since  the  beginning  of  the  year  of  inter¬ 
val  coincides  with  the  beginning  of  the  day,  e.  g.,  if  his  faculties 
ceased  on  the  30th  of  April,  1926,  then  the  time  is  completed 
at  the  beginning  of  the  day  of  the  same  number  of  the  succeed¬ 
ing  year,100  i.  e.,  Aprili  30,  1927.  When  the  year  of  interval  is 
complete  he  may  be  reappointed  by  the  Bishop  at  any  time,  e.  g., 
if  the  ordinary  or  extraordinary  confessor  should  die,  and  no 
indult  would  be  required.161  After  the  year  of  interval  there 
is  no  longer  any  restriction  as  to  the  number  of  times  that  he 
can  be  reappointed  provided  the  conditions  necessary  for  this 
exist  at  the  end  of  each  successive  term.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
law  to  render  this  procedure  illicit,  and  it  is  left  to  the  con¬ 
science  and  prudence  of  thq  Ordinary.162 

It  is  advisable,  however,  that  this  should  be  avoided  if  pos¬ 
sible,  for  it  seems  to  be  at  least  against  the  spirit  if  not  the  words 
of  the  law. 

The  Code  has  settled  the  disputes  existing  before  it  as  to  the 
meaning  of  the  word  extraordinary  of  the  decree  “Cum  de  Sa- 
cramentalibus.  ”  All  admitted  that  he  could  not  become  the 
extraordinary  community  confessor  of  the  Ember  weeks. 
Hizette,163  basing  his  opinion  on  the  reply  to  the  third  question 
of  the  Bishop  of  Mazara  quoted  above,  claimed  that  he  could  not 
become  the  particular  habitual  ordinary  confessor  of  those  who 
did  not  wish  to  address  the  confessor  except  in  the  cases  men¬ 
tioned  by  Benedict  XIV.  He  could,  however,  be  appointed 
supplementary  confessor  due  to  lack  of  priests.  Most  authors, 
on  the  contrary,  held,  as  did  BoudinhoIst  164  and  Vermeersch,105 
that  only  that  priest  is  the  “ex  officio”  extraordinary  confessor, 

159  Brandvs,  Bechtsbuch,  p.  161;  Fanfani,  op.  ext.,  n.  134. 

160  Can.  34,  $  3,  2°. 

161  Vermeersch,  Per.  VII,  p.  93. 

162  Curran,  Confessors  and  Confessions  of  Beligious  Women  of  SimpU 

Vows ,  p.  45. 

163  Confessions  des  Beligieuses,  p.  53,  note  (1). 

164  Canoniste  Contemporain,  36,  p.  339  ft. 

165  Periodica,  VII,  p.  92.  ■ 


Choice  and  Delegation  of  Confessors  135 

who  is  appointed  as  such  for  the  whole  community.  Therefore 
this  prohibition  did  not  prevent  the  ordinary  confessor  becoming 
the  supplementary  confessor  of  the  community  or  the  particular 
ordinary  confessor  of  an  individual  religious.  The  latter  opinion 
is  the  one  that  seems  to  be  accepted  by  the  present  law.  There 
is  only  one  confessor  who  is  called  in  the  Code  “extraordinary” 
and  he  is  the  confessor  obligatory  for  the  community  four  times 
a  year.166  Therefore  the  ordinary  confessor  can  under  the  pres¬ 
ent  Code  become  the  supplementary  confessor  of  Canon  521,  §  2 
or  the  special  ordinary  confessor  requested  by  a  religious  (Can. 
520,  §  2),  immediately  upon  the  completion  of  his  term.167  The 
prohibition  to  go  to  the  convent 168  and  hearing  confessions 
while  the  extraordinary  is  functioning  no  longer  obliges.  The 
ordinary  confessor  should,  however,  avoid  this  lest  in  any  way 
he  diminish  the  liberty  of  approach  to  the  extraordinary  con¬ 
fessor.169 

If,  however,  the  local  Ordinary  has  appointed  the  extraordi¬ 
nary  confessor  for  a  fixed  time  170  he  can  receive  immediate  ap¬ 
pointment  as  the  ordinary  confessor  of  the  same  community  at 
the  cessation  of  this  appointment.  This  was  permissible  also 
under  the  law  of  1913. 171 


166  Can.  521,  $  1. 

167  Brandys,  op.  cit.,  p.  163. 

168  s.  c.  EE  et  RR,  Bononien,  Jan.  1749,  ad  1;  Bizzarri,  p.  31. 

169  Aertnys-Damen,  Theologia  Moralis,  t.  II,  n.  373. 

170  Bastien,  op.  cit.,  n.  364. 

171  S.  C.  De  Rel.  decree  ‘‘Cum  De  Sacramentalibus, ’ ’  Feb.  3,  1913,  n.  11; 

AAS  V,  p.  63. 


CHAPTER  XI. 


THE  EXTRAORDINARY  COMMUNITY  CONFESSOR. 


Some  nuns  had  refused  at  times  to  confess  to  the  ordinary 
confessor  granted  to  them  by  the  Council  of  Trent  and  the  ex¬ 
traordinary  confessor  was  given  to  them  to  safeguard  the  integ¬ 
rity  and  the  right  and  profitable  usage  of  this  sacrament.1 

This  confessor  even  when  appointed  by  regular  superiors  for 
nuns  subject  to  them  had  to  be  approved  by  the  bishop.2  By  the 
prescription  of  the  Council  of  Trent  this  confessor  was  necessary 
only  for  convents  of  nuns  but  Benedict  XIV  exhorted  all  the 
bishops  of  the  church  to  extend  this  privilege  to  all  nuns  not 
living  in  cloister  but  in  community,  to  all  conservatories  and 
colleges  for  women  and  girls  since  the  same  things  were  to  be 
avoided  there  as  among  cloister  nuns.3  He  himself  prescribed 
it  for  the  “English  Ladies”  of  simple  vows.4  This  exhorta¬ 
tion  was  made  a  prescription  in  many  cases  by  the  Congregation 
of  Bishops  and  Regulars  5  and  confirmed  for  all  religious  even 
of  simple  vows  by  the  decree  “Quemadmodum”  of  Leo  XIII, 
by  his  constitution  “Conditae  a  Christo,”7  and  the  decree 


1  Benedict  XIV,  Const.  Pastoralis  Curae,  Aug.  5,  1748,  $2;  FJC  n.  388. 

2  ibid,  $$4, 10. 

*  ibid,  $3;  FJC,  loc.  cit. 

4  Ben.  XIV.  Const.  Quamvis  justo,  Apr.  30,  1749,  $$  13,14;  FJC,  n.  398. 

5  May  9,  1860;  June  6,  1860;  July  23,  1860;  Sept.  27,  1861;  cf.  Bizzarri, 

p.  780,  782,  786,  794;  Feb.  24,  1863,  An.  JP,  Series  9,  c.  272; 
Mav  17,  1865,  ibid.  c.  891,  ibid,  1021;  March  22,  1862,  ibid.  lib. 
71,  *c.  633;  cf.  AKKR,  79,  p.  714.  Cf.  Pius  IX  Ep.  Encye.,  Cum 
Nuper,  Jan.  20,  1858;  FJC,  n.  523,  $3. 
e  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Dec.  17,  1890,  n.  4;  S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1907),  n.  1745. 

7  Leo  XIII,  Const.  Conditae  a  Christo,  Dec.  8,  1900;  pt.  2,  n.  8;  Col. 
S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1907),  n.  2097. 

[136] 


The  Extraordinary  Community  Confessor  137 


“Cum  Sacramentalibus “  issued  by  the  Congregation  of  Reli 
gious  in  1913. 8  It  is  offered  by  our  present  Code  in  the  following 
words : 

CANON  521. 

§  1.  Unicuique  religiosarum  communitati  detur  con- 
fessarius  extraordinarius  qui  quater  saltern  in  anno  ad 
domum  religiosam  accedat  et  cui  omnes  religiosae  se 
sistere  debent,  saltern  benedictionem  recepturae. 

I.  An  Extraordinary  Confessor. 

From  the  canon  the  general  rule  is  evident  that  there  should 
only  be  one  extraordinary  confessor  for;  each  community.  More¬ 
over  the  same  canon,  §  2,  prescribes  supplementary  confessors 
most  likely  to  obviate  difficulties  which  would  arise  if  there  is 
only  one  extraordinary.  But  as  in  the  case  of  the  ordinary  con¬ 
fessor  exceptions  may  be  allowed  and  the  bishop  or  superior 
would  not  exceed  his  right  in  appointing  several  extraordinary 
confessors  if  there  was  a  great  number  of  religious  or  some  other 
just  motive,9  as  mentioned  under  Canon  520,  §  1.  This  is  not 
explicitly  stated  in  the  law  but  it  seems  only  just  that  it  should 
be  so  for  it  is  analagous  to  the  case  of  the  ordinary  confessor. 
Moreover  Canon  520  is  much  stricter  containing  the  prohibition 
( units  dumtaxat  detur  conf essarius)  of  more  than  one  ordinary 
confessor,  except  when  the  number  of  the  religious  in  the  com¬ 
munity  or  some  other  just  cause  demands  the  appointment  of 
more  than  one.  Canon  521,  §  1,  however,  simply  states  detur 
conf  essarius  extraordinarius  without  any  prohibition  to  appoint 
more  than  one.  If  the  Code  explicitly  permits  it  in  these  cir¬ 
cumstances  under  a  canon  that  contains  an  express  prohibition 
a  pari  at  least  more  than  one  extraordinary  confessor  can  be 
given  to  communities  under  the  same  conditions. 

From  the  wording  of  the  canon  it  seems  to  be  the  mind  of 
the  legislator  that  the  same  priest  should  be  sent  four  times 


8  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Feb.  3,  1913,  n.  3;  AAS  V,  62. 

9  Boudinhon,  C  C,  36,  p.  275;  Curran,  Confessors  and  Confessions  of 

Religious  Women  of  Simple  Vows,  p.  57. 


138 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


during  the  year,  so  that  the  religious  would  have  a  sufficiently 
stable  and  continuous  direction.  But  if  suitable  priests  are  lack¬ 
ing,  it  does  not  seem  repugnant  to  the  law  that  now  one  and  then 
another  is  sent  as  extraordinary  confessor  on  one  of  these 
occasions.10 

The  canon  uses  the  word  detur ,  the  imperative  form  of  the 
present  subjunctive  implying  an  obligation  upon  the  bishop 
who  is  to  give  such  a  confessor  to  the  community.* 11 

II.  Every  community  of  religious  women — is  to  receive  an 
extraordinary  confessor.  This  canon  uses  the  words  unicuique 
religiosarum  communitati  while  Canon  520,  §  1,  speaking  of  the 
ordinary  confessor  says  Singulis  religiosarum  domibus.  The  dif¬ 
ference  in  wording  does  not  imply  a  difference  in  meaning,  for 
a  community  could  hardly  exist  as  such  without  a  house  in  the 
sense  of  these  canons.  Neither  could  there  be  a  religious  house 
in  the  juridical  sense  without  the  element  of  personality  present, 
otherwise  it  would  just  be  religious  property.12  Moreover,  the 
word  community  can  not  be  taken  in  the  sense  sometimes  used 
in  English  as  applying  to  the  whole  institute.  Therefore,  these 
two  phrases  are  synonymous  in  meaning  and  an  extraordinary 
confessor  would  have  to  be  appointed  to  every  house  for  which 
an  ordinary  confessor  is  required.  It  follows  also  just  as  an 
ordinary  confessor  must  be  appointed  even  for  houses  which 
are  not  formal 13  so  also  an  extraordinary  must  be  appointed 
for  houses  of  less  than  six  members.  This  is  evident  from  the 
whole  purpose  of  the  extraordinary  confessor  in  its  juridical 
history  which  was  to  afford  relief  from  habitual  confession  to 
the  ordinary  confessor.  The  fact  of  the  appointment  of  the 


10  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  593;  Fanfani,  De  Jure  Religiosorum, 

n.  135. 

11  Cf.  Treatment  upon  Can.  520,  $  1,  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  134. 

12  Can.  488,  5°.  Domus  religiosae ,  domus  alicujus  religionis  in  genere; 

domus  regularis,  domus  ordinis ;  domus  formatae,  domus  religiosa  in 
qua  sex  saltern  religiosi  professi  degunt,  quorum,  si  agatur  de 
religione  clericali,  quatuor  saltern  sint  sacerdotes ;  Cf.  Can.  531,  ff. 
which  treat  of  the  administration  of  goods. 

13  Cf.  Explanation  of  Can.  520,  $  1;  Brandys,  Kirchliches  Rechtsbuch, 

p.  154. 


The  Extraordinary  Community  Confessor  139 

ordinary  confessor  demands  as  its  complement  the  appointment 
of  the  extraordinary  confessor  for  these  two  offices  are  correla¬ 
tive. 

III.  Number  of  Visits. 

The  Council  of  Trent  only  required  the  extraordinary  con¬ 
fessor  to  go  to  the  convent  twice  a  year.14  This  was  confirmed 
by  the  subsequent  Pontiffs  who  wrote  on  this  point  including 
Benedict  XIV  15  and  continued  until  the  time  of  the  decree  of 
the  “Cum  de  Sacramentalibus”  of  1913  of  the  Congregation 
for  Religious 10  substituted  the  word  pluries.  This,  however, 
was  very  indefinite  and  authors  appealing  to  the  rule  of  law’ 
that  plurality  is  contained  in  the  number  2,  pluralis 
locutio  duorum  numero  est  contents, 17  interpreted  the  law  as 
requiring  at  the  most  two  visits  to  hear  confessions.18  It  was 
no  doubt  to  remove  this  difficulty  and  show  that  the  intention  of 
the  Church  is  to  a  greater  frequency  of  approach,  that  four 
visits  are  required  by  this  canon  which  give  a  sort  of  stability 
to  his  direction.19  The  four  intervals  need  not  be  equal.  He 
should  go  about  once  every  three  months,  but  a  difference  of  a 
week  or  two  is  not  of  importance.  The  “quater  temps”  or 
ember  weeks,  marking  the  change  of  the  seasons,  have  become  by 
a  laudable  custom  the  times  generally  observed  for  the  approach 
of  the  extraordinary  confessor.  This  is  however  in  no  way 
prescribed  and  nothing  prevents  the  presentation  of  the  extra¬ 
ordinary  confessor  at  other  times,  e.  g.,  during  retreats.20  The 

14  Sess.  XXV,  De  Begularibus,  c.  10;  Ehses,  Concilium  Tridentinum,  t.  9, 

1082;  Cf.  Hizette,  Confessions  des  Beligieuses,  p.  32,  note  (1). 

15  Const.  Pastoralis  Curae  §4;  FJC,  n.  388. 

16  s.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Cum  de  Sacramentalibus,  Feb.  3,  1913,  n.  3;  Pluries  in 

anno,  unicuique  religiosae  communitati,  detur  confessarius  extra- 
ordinarius  ad  quern  omnes  religiosae  accedant  oportet,  saltern  ut 
benedictionem  accipiant ;  ASS  V,  62;  2nd.  Eng.  Trans,  ibid.  p.  246; 
Vermeersch,  Per.  VII,  n.  652;  Hizette,  Confessions  des  Beligieuses, 
p.  32. 

17  RJ  in  VI°,  Reg.  40. 

18  Boudinhon,  C  C.,  36,  p.  275;  Curran,  op.  cit.  p.  57. 

19  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  593. 

20  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  135 ;  Bastien,  Directoire  Canonique,  n.  357 ;  Creusen, 

Beligieux  et  Beligieuses,  n.  94;  Choupin,  L’Etat  Beligieux,  p.  225; 
Hizette,  op.  cit.  p.  33;  Brandys,  Bechtsbuch,  p.  154;  Mothon,  Etat 
Beligieux ,  p.  235. 


140 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


question  arises — Can  the  extraordinary  confessor  go  to  the  con¬ 
vent  more  than  four  times  a  year  to  discharge  his  functions? 

Fanfani,21  Shafer  22  and  Vermeersch-Creusen  take  the 
view  that  he  can  not  of  his  own  free  will,23  for  whether  that 
would  be  opportune  is  left  to  the  judgment  as  well  as  the  con¬ 
sent  of  the  bishop.  If  such  were  the  case,  he  would  become  like 
the  ordinary  confessor.  The  extraordinary  confessors  of  the 
religious  houses  are  forbidden  to  go  more  than  four  times  to  hear 
the  confessions  of  the  community.24  The  contrary  view  spon¬ 
sored  by  Aertnys-Damen,25  Papi,26  Genicot,27  Kinane,28  Mo- 
thon29  and  Battandier30  is  the  better  in  proof  of  which  the 
following  reasons  are  submitted : 

I — The  words  used  are  qui  quater  saltern  in  anno  accedat. 
Now  the  words  of  any  law  must  be  understood  according  to  their 
proper1  signification  in  the  text  and  context.31 

According  to  common  usage  this  word  saltern  has  the  mean¬ 
ing  of  “at  least,  or  at  the  least,  or  the  minimum. ”  32  It  evi¬ 
dently  implies  here  that  the  minimum  number  of  times  that  the 
extraordinary  confessor  is  to  visit  the  convent  for  the  purpose  of 
hearing  confessions  is  four  times  a  year  but  that  he  may  do  so 


21  De  Jure  Beligiosorum,  n.  135,  dubium,  II. 

22  Ordensrecht,  p.  114. 

23  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  592. 

24  Creusen,  Beligieux  et  Beligieuses,  n.  94. 

25  Theol.  Mor.,  II,  n.  374. 

20  The  Government  of  Beligious  Communities,  p.  134. 

27  Theol.  Mor.  II,  n.  341. 

28  ir.  Ecc.  Bee.,  Dec.  1923,  XXII,  640  ff. 

29  Etat  Beligieux,  p.  235,  note  28.  He  requires  the  demand  of  the 

community. 

30  Guide  Canonique,  n.  254. 

31  Can.  18,  Leges  ecclesiasticae  intelligendae  sunt  secundum  propriam 

verborum  significationem  in  textu  et  contextu  consideratam ; 

32  Facciolati,  Totius  Latinitatis  Lexicon  Vol.  II,  p.  468,  who  proves  that 

the  contention  of  some  etymologists,  that  this  word  had  the  meaning 
in  certain  places  of  the  English  word  only,  is  wrong,  since  it  should 
be  reduced  in  all  cases  to  mean  the  minimum;  Cf.  Andrews,  Latin- 
Engliah  Lexicon,  p.  1349;  Walde,  Lateinisches  Etymologisches  Wdrter- 
buch,  p.  673. 


The  Extraordinary  Community  Confessor 


141 


more  frequently.33  If  four  was  the  maximum  number  of  times 
that  he  should  approach  them,  either  the  word  saltern  should 
have  been  omitted  entirely  for  it  is  unnecessary  and  misleading  34 
or  a  restrictive  phrase  such  as  ne  pluries  quam  quater,  should 
have  been  inserted  to  show  the  exact  meaning. 

II.  Canon  18  demands  that  in  interpreting  the  law  if  it 
be  doubtful,  that  besides  the  words  of  the  law  parallel  places  in 
the  Code  should  be  consulted.  The  word  saltern  is  used  in  the 
same  wray  in  which  it  has  just  been  interpreted  in  various  places 
in  the  Code.35 

III.  Following  the  third  method  of  Canon  18  it  is  evident 
that  this  was  the  mind  of  the  legislator.  Before  the  Code,  as 
explained  above,  there  was  a  dispute  in  regard  to  the  interpre¬ 
tation  of  the  wTord  pluries ,  which  some,  following  the  rule  of  law 
“pluralis  locutio  in  numero  duorum  est  contenta,  ”  considered 

33  Kinane,  loc.  cit.;  Battandier,  Guide  Canonique,  n.  254;  In  proof  of 

this  contention  that  the  word  saltern  does  not  exclude  a  greater 
number  than  the  one,  which  it  is  modifying,  are  offered  the  very  clear 
words  of  Barbosa,  who  gives  the  precise  canonical  meaning  and 
force  of  the  word  as  understood  in  law. 

“  Adjecta  dispositioni  numerali  non  excludit  majorem  numerum, 
quam  fuerit  expressum,  ut  si  dicatur  quod  debeant  esse  tres  canonici 
saltern,  possunt  adesse  quatuor,  quia  non  restringitur  dispositio  .... 
De  sui  enim  natura  non  excludit  ....  Est  implicativa,  non  autem 
limitativa;”  Tractatus  Varii,  Dictiones  Usufrequent.,  Dictio,  CCCLV, 
n.  2,  4,  5,  p.  782  (1660). 

34  Kinanee,  loc.  cit. 

35  Thus  Can.  906,  speaking  of  the  obligation  of  annual  confession,  states 

that  all  those  having  attained  the  use  of  reason  are  bound  to 
confess  all  their  sins  saltern  semel  in  anno.  Surely  no  one  would 
prohibit  them  because  of  the  word  saltern  from  confessing  more 
often.  Canon  126  states  that  secular  priests  should  make  a  retreat 
tertio  saltern  quoque  anno.  Yet  the  interpretation  of  these  words 
as  restricting  a  priest  to  one  retreat  every  three  years  could  not  be 
sustained,  since  it  is  against  the  approved  custom  of  a  yearly  retreat. 
The  same  holds  for  the  junior  clergy  examinations  mentioned  in 
Canon  130  exarnen  singulis  annis  saltern  per  integrum  triennium 
yet  many  bishops  require  that  their  priests  undergo  these  ex¬ 
aminations  for  five  years  e.  g.  in  the  Archdiocese  of  New  York. 
Religious  superiors  are  told  in  Canon  595,  $  3  to  see  to  it  that 
their  subjects  go  to  confession  semel  saltern  in  hebdomada.  We 
could  not,  on  any  grounds,  exclude  them  from  more  frequent  ap¬ 
proach  to  this  sacrament.  Bishops  and  religious  superiors  on  the 
other  hand  are  to  see  to  it  that  their  priests  celebrate  Mass  saltern 
singulis  diebus  dominicis  aliisque  festis  de  praecepto  divinis  operentur 
(Can.  805)  while  that  they  celebrate  more  often  is  a  thing  to  be 
desired  and  no  restriction  could  be  placed  upon  it,  because  of  that 
word  saltern. 


142 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


to  imply  two  visits  as  sufficient.  The  legislator  used  the  word 
saltern  to  settle  this  dispute  requiring  at  least  four  visits  and 
thereby  approving  the  custom  existing  before  the  Code  of  having 
him  go  four  times  a  year  at  the  ember  weeks.36 

It  may  be  objected  that  if  more  than  four  visits  are  per¬ 
mitted,  -where  can  a  limit  be  set  ?  It  is  evident  that  the  extra¬ 
ordinary  confessor  may  not  go  so  frequently  as  to  become  al¬ 
most  an  ordinary  confessor,  for  the  Council  of  Trent  permitted 
it  two  or  three  times,  the  “Normae”  of  1901  37  even  more  often38 
while  the  decree  “Cum  de  Sacramentalibus”  extended  this  to 
include  several  visits  “pluries.  ”  39 

These  must  form  the  norm  and  since  the  exceptional  needs 
of  the  community,  e.  g.,  the  community  desired  the  extraordinary 
at  the  time  of  retreats  taking  place  outside  of  Ember  weeks,40 
would  hardly  demand  it  more  frequently,  Kinane  is  justified  in 
placing  the  number  about  six  or  seven  times.41  It  is  true  that  the 
Ordinary  can  limit  the  number  of  times  the  extraordinary  con¬ 
fessor  can  go42  for  he  alone  can  delegate  jurisdiction  for  the  con¬ 
fessions  of  religious  women.43  But  if  the  Ordinary  has  appointed 
him  without  any  restriction  of  this  kind  as  extraordinary  confes¬ 
sor  in  regard  to  the  number  of  times  he  is  to  visit  the  convent  to 
hear  confessions,  without  any  further  authority  he  can  hear 
confessions  more  than  four  times.  If  he  heard  beyond  the  times 
permitted  by  Canon  520,,  §  1,  or  the  rule  of  the  Ordinary,  pro¬ 
vided  he  had  not  been  told  that  his  jurisdiction  ceased  after  a 
certain  number  of  visits,  in  virtue  of  the  jurisdiction  received 
by  his  very  appointment,  the  confessions  are  valid  although  his 

36  Curran,  op.  cit.  p.  57. 

37  art.  143. 

38  Hizette,  op.  cit.,  p.  32. 

39  n.  3,  AAS  V,  62;  cf.  preceding  page. 

40  Schafer,  Ordensrecht ,  p.  113. 

41  Kinane,  Ir.  Ecc.  Ecc.,  loc.  cit.',  Creusen  (op.  cit.  n.  94),  states  that 

the  religious  superioresses  of  the  diocese  of  Bruges,  Belgium,  can, 
without  further  authorization,  invite  him  to  hear  the  confessions 
of  the  religious  if  the  ordinary  confessor  is  incapable  of  fulfilling 
his  office.  He  is  not  by  this  fact  dispensed  from  his  visit  during 
the  Ember  week  of  September. 

42  Can.  878,  $1  states  1  ‘  J urisdictio  delegata  aut  licentia  audiendarum 

confessionum  concedi  potest  certis  quibusdam  circumscripta  finibus 

43  Can.  876,  $  1. 


The  Extraordinary  Community  Confessor  143 

action  is  unlawful.  This  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  extra¬ 
ordinary  confessor  is  in  a  different  position  from  those  confes¬ 
sors  whose  jurisdiction  is  derived  from  law  and  limited  by  all 
the  conditions  of  law.44 

If  he  should  go  two  or  three  times  more  of  his  own  accord  to 
hear  the  confessions  of  the  community  it  seems  from  the  word- 
inf  of  the  canon,  that  all  the  religious  should  present  themselves 
to  him. 

IV.  All  the  religious  must  present  themselves  to  the  extra¬ 
ordinary  confessor. 

The  old  law  required  that  all  dwelling  in  the  monastery,  both 
nuns  and  secular  women,45  who  were  there  as  students,  guests, 
sick  or  servants,  etc.,  present  themselves  to  the  extraordi¬ 
nary  confessor.  Refusal  to  do  so  by  the  nuns  was  to  be  pun¬ 
ished  by  their  superioresses,  while  girl  students  making  the  same 
refusal  were  to  be  expelled.46  This  obligation  was  restricted  by 
the  decree  “Cum  de  Sacramentalibus”  to  religious  properly  so- 
called.47 

This  restriction  is  adopted  by  the  present  canon.  Therefore, 
the  obligation  of  presentation  of  self  to  the  extraordinary  con¬ 
fessor  only  binds  religious  properly  so-called,  i.  e.,  nuns  with 
solemn  vows  or  sisters  with  simple  vows,48  and  novices  must 
also  present  themselves  since  they  are  to  have  an  extraordinary 
confessor  49  although  not  necessarily  distinct  from  the  extraordi¬ 
nary  confessor  of  the  professed.  The  same  reasons  that  urge 
for  the  observance  of  this  law  by  the  professed  hold  also  for  the 
novice. 

Pious  societies  of  women  living  in  community  even  without 
vows  50  are  also  bound  to  the  observance  of  this  law  since  the 

44  Kinane,  loc.  cit.;  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  De  Beligiosis,  n.  49. 

45  Benedict  XIV,  Const.  Pastoralis  Curae,  $3;  FJC,  n.  388. 

4fl  Decree  of  Clement  XI,  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Dec.  12,  1708;  given  to  the 
monasteries  of  Rome  by  the  Cardinal  Vicar  of  Rome;  cf.  Bizzarri, 
p.  293;  Ferraris,  v.  Monialis,  V,  n.  37,  p.  1103;  Cf.  Benedict  XIV, 
Pastoralis  Curae  loc.  cit.;  Normae  S.  C.  EE  et  RR  (1901),  art.  143. 

47  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Feb.  13,  1913,  n.  4;  AAS  V,  62;  2nd  Eng.  Trans,  ibid., 

p.  266. 

48  Can.  488,  7°. 

49  Can.  566,  $  1. 

50  Can.  675. 


144 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


Code  prescribes  the  same  discipline  for  them.  Girl  students  in 
colleges  51  were  explicitly  exempted  from  this  law  by  the  Con¬ 
gregation  of  Bishops  and  Regulars  before  the  Code. 

“At  least  to  receive  his  blessing.”  It  is  not  prescribed  that 
the  individual  religious  make  a  sacramental  confession  to  the 
extraordinary  confessor.  This  dates  from  the  time  of  Benedict 
XIV  who  interpreted  the  words  of  the  Council  of  Trent 52  1 1  Qui 
omnium  confessiones  audire  debeat”  as  not  implying  an  obliga¬ 
tion  to  make  sacramental  confession  if  they  did  not  so  desire, 
but  only  of  presenting  themselves  to  receive  salutary  advice. 
This  was  prudently  decided  so  that  all  the  religious  could  with¬ 
out  shame  present  themselves  to  the  extraordinary  confessor, 
and  to  prevent  the  suspicion  that  might  arise  if  certain  nuns 
went  to  him  and  others  did  not.  The  reason  for  approach  of 
the  former  might  have  become  a  matter  of  discussion  among  the 
others.53  Another  purpose  for  this  was  to  prevent  accusation 
of  neglect  upon  the  part  of  the  superiors'  in  their  duty  of  offer¬ 
ing  religious  an  opportunity  of  quieting  their  consciences. 

CANON  524. 

§  2.  ...  in  eadem  communitate  .  .  .  extraordinarius 
vero  immediate  ut  ordinarius  renuntiari  potest. 

This  was  first  introduced  by  the  decree,  “Cum  de  Sacramen- 

talibus.”  54  There  exists  no  rule  for  limiting  the  time  of  service 

of  the  extraordinary  confessor  in  the  same  community  or  which 

imposes  any  renewal.  This  seems  to  be  the  reason  why  the 

Congregation  authorized  the  extraordinary  confessor  to  become 

ordinary  confessor  without  interruption.55 

* 

The  law  is  so  lenient  for  the  ordinary  confessor  because,  al¬ 
though  the  religious  are  bound  to  present  themselves  to  him, 

51  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Majarien  et  Civitatis  Plebis,  Dec.  7,  1906,  ad  7 ;  ASS, 

XL,  p.  54;  Vermeersch,  Per.  Ill,  n.  172. 

52  Sess.  XXV,  De  Eegularibus,  c.  10;  Ehses,  Concilium  Tridentinum,  t.  9, 

1082. 

53  Benedict  XIV,  Const.  Pastoralis  Curae,  Aug.  5,  1748;  $3;  FJC,  n. 

388.  Fanfani,  De  Jure  Eeligiosorum,  n.  135;  Hizette,  Confessions 
des  Eeligieuses,  p.  33.  Cocchi,  II,  Pars  II,  n.  39.  Biederlack- 
Fuhrich,  De  Eeligiosis.  n.  49;  Genicot,  Theol.  Mor.  II,  n.  341. 

54  Art.  XI,  AAS,  V,  63. 

55  Boudinhon,  CC,  36,  p.  340. 


The  Extraordinary  Community  Confessor  145 

they  are  not  bound  to  make  a  sacramental  confession  and  can 
simply  ask  his  blessing.  Circumstances  may,  however,  be  such 
that  the  passage  from  extraordinary  to  ordinary  will  not  be 
without  inconvenience.56  The  Ordinary  should  watch  out  that 
the  sisters  be  not  limited  for  many  years  to  two  priests.  This  can 
easily  happen,  when,  except  for  the  interval  required  by  law 
after  the  term  of  the  ordinary  confessor,  the  office  of  ordinary 
and  extraordinary  is  interchanged  between  two  priests.  This 
is  undesirable  unless  the  exceptional  qualities  of  the  confessors 
make  their  very  stability  in  office  pleasing  to  all.57  That  the 
extraordinary  confessor  was  not  bound  by  the  three-year  term  58 
was  the  rule  before  the  Code.  Since  the  Code  does  not  prohibit 
this  it  can  be  retained  as  the  principle  now.59 

It  is  to  be  noted  that;  the  jurisdiction  of  the  extraordinary 
confessor  in  regard  to  the  members  of  the  community  extends 
as  far  and  no  further  than  that  of  the  ordinary  confessor,60  un¬ 
less  expressly  stated  to  the  contrary. 

56  Battandier,  Guide  Canonique,  n.  264. 

57  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  592. 

58  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Majarien  et  Civitatis  Plebis,  Dec.  7,  1906;  Vermeersch, 

Per.  Ill,  n.  172. 

59  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  135;  Bastien,  op.  cit.  n.  357. 

60  Curran,  op.  cit.  p.  57. 


CHAPTER  XII. 


QUALITIES 
OF  THE 

ORDINARY  AND  EXTRAORDINARY  CONFESSOR. 


Under  the  old  law,  as  promulgated  by  Benedict  XIV,  all 
priests  were  not  eligible  for  the  office  of  confessor.  Nuns  subject 
to  regulars  were  to  be  provided  by  the  regular  superior  with  an 
ordinary  confessor  of  their  own  order.  Although  regular  su¬ 
periors  could,  they  were  not  obliged  to  grant  the  extraordinary 
confessor  from  another  order  or  the  secular  clergy  more  than 
once  a  year.1  For  nuns  subject  to  the  bishop  the  rule  was  that 
their  ordinary  confessor  was  to*  be  a  secular  priest.  The  exclu¬ 
sion  of  regulars  as  ordinary  confessors  of  such  religious  was 
extended  to  religious  of  simple  vows.2  Although  the  extraordi¬ 
nary  confessors  of  nuns  subject  to  the  bishop  were  to  be  seculars, 
Benedict  sanctioned  the  custom,  due  to  a  lack  of  suitable  priests 
in  the  various  dioceses,  of  appointing  a  regular  to  this  office.3 

These  prescriptions  remained  in  force  until  the  decree  ‘  *  Cum 
de  Sacramentalibus.  ’  ’  4 

The  only  exclusion  retained  by  the  decree  was  that  of  priests 
having  authority  over  the  religious  in  the  external  forum.  The 
principal  motive  for  this  innovation  came  from  the  Bishops  who 
could  not  otherwise  observe  the  law  of  the  three-year  renewal  of 
the  ordinary  confessor  due  to  the  dearth  of  suitable  priests.  In- 
multiplying  the  ordinary  confessors  the  Holy  See  wished  to 

1  Benedict  XIV,  Const.  Pastoralis  Curae,  Aug.  5,  1748,  $$10,  11;  FJC 

n.  388. 

2  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Sept.  1,  1905  ad  IV;  ASS  XXVIII,  48;  Col.  S.  C. 

P.  F.  (ed.  1907),  n.  2219;  Vermeersch,  Per.  II,  n.  93,  annotatio, 
p.  42 ;  cf.  Hizette,  Confessions  des  fieliaieuses,  p.  47. 

3  Benedict  XIV,  loc.  cit. 

i  n.  7;  AAS  V,  63, 


[146] 


Qualities  of  the  Ordinary  and  Extraordinary  147 

Confessor 

suppress  as  soon  as  possible  the  reason  or  pretext  alleged.5  The 
Code  has  the  same  prescription  making  no  distinction  between 
the  regular  and  secular  clergy. 

CANON  524. 

§  1.  In  munus  confessarii  religiosarum  et  ordinarii 
et  extraordinarii  deputentur  sacerdotes,  sive  e  clero 
saeculari,  sive  religiosi  de  Superiorum  licentia,  momm  in- 
tegritate  ac  prudentia  praestantes;  sint  insuper  annas 
nati  quadraginta,  nisi  iusta  causa,  iudicio  Ordinarii, 
aliud  exigat,  nullam  potestatem  in  easdem  religiasas  in 
foro  externo  habentes. 

I.  Eligible  Priests. 

A.  All  priests,  whether  secular  or  religious  are  eligible. 

Seculars  being  subject  to  the  bishop  directly  can  be  ap¬ 
pointed  to  these  offices  without  further  question.  It  it  is  a  ques¬ 
tion  of  religious  women  belonging  to  some  religious  order,  it  is 
not  prescribed  but  is  often  advisable  that  a  religious  of  the 
same  order  be  assigned  as  confessor,  that  he  might  more  easily 
direct  the  religious  women  in  the  spirit  and  observances  of  the 
order.6  Religious  priests  however  require  the  permission  of 
their  superiors  because  the  constitutions  of  certain  orders  will 
not  allow  their  priests  to  be  ordinary  confessors  of  religious 
women,  e.  g.,  Jesuits,7  except  in  the  absence  of  every  other  priest 
as  was  the  case  in  the  missions.8  These  prescriptions  should  be 
followed,  for  the  superior  may  have  special  reasons  for  not  ap¬ 
proving  the  choice.9  If  the  bishop  should  appoint  one  without 
at  least  presumed  permission  of  the  superior,  this  omission  would 
not  affect  the  validity  of  the  confession  but  only  the  lawfulness 
of  the  absolution.  All  that  is  required  for  validity  is  the  special 
approbation  by  the  bishop  for  the  hearing  of  the  confessions  of 

5  Hizette,  op.  cit.,  p.  48. 

6  Fanfani,  loc.  cit.,  n.  140.  i 

7  Can.  874,  $  1 ;  op.  cit.,  p.  48. 

8  Creusen,  Beligieux  et  Religieuses,  n.  98. 

P  Bastien,  Directoire  Canonique,  n.  363, 


148 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


the  religious  women.10  Although  the  bishop  acts  wrongly  m 
not  consulting  the  superior  the  faculties  would  be  valid  despite 
his  objection. 

B.  Exceptions. 

Those  having  power  over  the  religious  women  in  the  exter¬ 
nal  forum  can  not  receive  these  incumbencies.  This  is  a  con¬ 
firmation  of  the  legislation  in  force  in  the  past  which 
tends  more  and  more  to  mark  a  separation  between  the 
external  and  internal  forum.  Its  purpose  is  to  prevent  super¬ 
iors,  as  confessors  of  the  religious,  from  using  or  abusing  knowl¬ 
edge  acquired  in  the  penitential  forum  by  the  exercise  of  their 
jurisdiction  in  the  external  forum.  Such  actions  or  even  suspi¬ 
cion  or  fear  would  break  down  the  confidence  of  the  religious  in 
the  sacrament  of  penance.* 11 

This  would  include  those  having  dominative  power  or  the 
power  of  jurisdiction.12 

I.  In  the  Secular  Clergy.  They  are:  (1)  The  bishop,13  (2) 
the  vicar  general,14  for  it  is  not  a  good  thing  that  they  have  power 
over  the  same  persons  in  the  forum  of  conscience  and  the  juridi¬ 
cal  forum  also,  lest  the  former  be  rendered  hateful  and  thus  pre¬ 
vent  integral  confessions;  (3)  the  delegate  or  visitor 
of  the  bishop  for  every  house  or  institute  since  he  can  be  called 
an  ecclesiastical  superior  for  the  sisters  whom  he  visits:15  (4) 
other  persons  having  diocesan  administration  such  as  school 
directors,  superintendents,  examiners,  inspectors,  or  supervisors 
of  hospitals,  etc.,16  who  can  give  orders  to  the  religious,17  and 


10  Can.  876,  $  1. 

11  Hizette,  op.  cit.,  p.  49. 

12  Blat,  II,  pars  II,  n.  587. 

13  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  to  the  Bishop  of  Parma,  1780;  An.  JP,  lib.  30,  col. 

1283;  cf.  Joder,  AKKR,  t.  79,  p.  453;  1889,  cf.  Hizette,  op.  cit.  49. 

14  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  in  Sorana,  July  23,  1537;  in  Mutinen,  Feb.  3,  1597; 

Ferraris,  v.  Monialis,  V,  n.  24,  p.  1100;  Lucidi,  De  Visitat.  SS.  LL., 
II,  189;  March  17,  1893,  cf.  Joder,  AKKR,  t.  79,  p.  453;  Hizette,  loc. 
cit.,  Boudinhon,  CC,  36,  p.  335;  Bastien,  op.  cit.,  n.  363;  Verraeersch- 
Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  591;  Cocchi,  II,  pars  II,  n.  44;  Lanslots,  Hand¬ 
book  of  Canon  Law,  p.  157. 

1;)  Boudinhon,  op.  cit.,  p.  336;  Hizette,  op.  cit.,  p.  49. 
io  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  n.  591;  Fanfani,  De  Jure  Beligiosorum,  n. 
140;  Papi,  Eeligious  in  Church  Law ,  p.  60;  Leitner,  Handbuch 
( Dritte  Licferung ),  p.  361, 

17  Leitner,  op.  cit.,  p.  261, 


J  »v  •  t  '  ^ 

Qualities  of  the  Ordinary  and  Extraordinary  149 

Confessor 

(5)  even  the  pastor,  who  directs  his  own  school,  for  the  nuns 
teaching  in  his  school  or  for  others  if  his  parish  duties  would  suf¬ 
fer  thereby.18  In  places  where  sisters  teach  in  parish  schools  living 
away  from  their  convent  the  pastor  should  not  be  appointed  as 
their  confessor.  Although  he  is  not  strictly  speaking  their  sup¬ 
erior,  nevertheless  he  has  great  authority  in  the  Catholic  school 
and  conflicts  between  him  and  the  superioress  can  easily  arise. 
Moreover,  the  obligation  of  the  seal  may  prevent  his  taking 
action  against  things  which  his  office  would  demand.  If  the 
ordinary  can  not  appoint  a  more  suitable  one  as  ordinary  con¬ 
fessor  he  should  allow  the  sisters  to  freely  approach  any  con¬ 
fessor  in  any  parish  church.  Allowance  must  be  made  for  an 
ordinary  who  has  a  just  cause  for  ordaining  matter  differently.19 

The  chaplain,  however,  can  also  be  the  confessor.  There 
is  nothing  to  prevent  thig  unless  some  other  authority  is  super- 
added.  The  catechist  in  schools  and  educational  institutions 
under  the  direction  of  religious  women  or  teachers,  specialists 
in  certain  branches  of  study,  or  procurator  or  econome,  etc.,  are 
offices  which  in  themselves  confer  no  power  over  the  religious.20 

II.  In  the  Regular  Clergy.  Ineligible  are  superiors  having 
authority  immediately  over  the  convent,  which  include  prac¬ 
tically  the  provincial  and  superior  of  the  house  21  but  not  the 
Vicar  of  the  Convent  22  unless  he  is  at  the  same  time  superior  of 
the  house.  Otherwise  he  is  the  substitute  for  the  superior  only 
during  very  short  periods  of  the  latter’s  absence. 


18  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  in  Una  Venetiarum,  July  26,  1594;  in  Parmensi, 

March  7,  1652;  in  Eaurinensi,  Aug.  2,  1562;  and  often  elsewhere; 
Ferraris,  o.  c.  V.  Mo nialis ,  V,  n.  25;  Venetiarum ,  March  17,  1592; 
cf.  Bizzarri,  p.  332;  Eossanen ,  July  7,  1780,  id.,  p.  394.  cf.  Cocchi, 
II,  pars  II,  n.  44;  Bastien,  1.  c. 

19  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  591;  Schafer,  Ordensrecht ,  p.  119. 

20  Leitner,  op.  cit.,  p.  361. 

21  Hizette,  loc.  cit.,  Boudinhon,  loc.  cit.;  Aertnys-Damen,  Theol.  Mor.  II, 

n.  375  (ed.  1920). 

22  Fanfani,  loe.  cit.,  includes  him. 


150 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


C.  Personal  Qualities. 

These  requirements  are  even  found  shortly  after  the  Council 
of  Trent.  Trent  in  many  replies  that  were  given  in  regard  to 
the  ordinary  and  extraordinary  confessor  of  the  religious. 

A.  Integrity  of  Morals  and  Prudence.  The  qualities  are 
necessary  by  reason  of  his  ministry  for  if  he  is  to  conduct  such 
fervent  souls  to  higher  perfection  he  should,  be  an  example  to 
them.23  The  bishop  need  be  only  morally  certain  that  these 
qualities  exist,  but  one  judged  suitable  by  his 24  superiors, 
whether  secular  or  religious,  to  exercise  this  ministry  for  reli¬ 
gious  women  need  not  worry.  He  must  be  content  in  the  judg¬ 
ment  of  his  superiors  that  he  has  the  integrity  and  prudence  re¬ 
quired.25 

More  prudence  is  necessary  in  confessors  of  religious  than 
of  the  ordinary  faithful.  (1)  Because  religious  perfection  can 
hardly  be  obtained  without  an  instructor.  (2)  Women  are  nat¬ 
urally  less  prudent  and  therefore  in  the  spiritual  life  are  ex¬ 
posed  to  various  and  dangerous  illusions,  which  ordinarily  they 
can  not  dispel  without  the  direction  of  a  prudent  and  discreet 
confessor  or  spiritual  director.  (3)  They  easily  desist  from 
things  which  they  have  begun  well  unless  strengthened  by  more 
efficacious  persuasions  and  excited  to  greater  things,  which  help 
only  the  confessor  can  give  to  religious  women.  (4)  They  are  by 
nature  timorous,  and  therefore  can  be  easily  kept  from  reveal¬ 
ing  their  troubles  of  soul,  unless  they  have  an  experienced  spiri¬ 
tual  physician,  who  can  with  the  greatest  tact  discover  these  in¬ 
firmities  and  apply  suitable  remedies,  which  is  without  doubt 
the  office  of  the  confessor.  (5)  The  confessor  must  be  prudent 
and  circumspect  to  prevent  anything  such  as  a  natural  affection 
for  him.  (6)  If  religious  women  desist  from  the  spiritual  life 
they  are  subject  to  greater  temptations  and  they  need  the  pru¬ 
dent  advice  of  an  experienced  doctor  to  show  them  the  methods 
of  conquest.  (7)  There  are  many  obstacles  in  the  progress 
of  the  spiritual  life.  Therefore  the  confessor  should  be  discreet, 

28  Bastien,  op.  cit.f  n.  336;  Brandys,  Rechtsluch,  p.  159. 

24  Hizette,  loc.  cit.,  p.  47 ;  if ;  Boudinhon,  loc.  cit. 

25  Vermeersch,  Per.  VII,  p.  92. 


Qualities  of  the  Ordinary  and  Extraordinary  151 

Confessor 

sagacious  and  experienced  in  the  spiritual  life.  Otherwise  he 
would  be  like  the  blind  leading  the  blind  with  the  result  that  both 
fall  into  the  ditch.26  Therefore  it  is  required  of  the  confessor  of 
nuns  that  he  have  the  knowledge  of  a-  judge,  for  he  must  make 
distinctions  of  sins  and  give  or  refuse  absolution  according  to  his 
decision  on  these,  of  a  physician  for  he  must  suggest  remedies. 
He  should  have  the  same  virtues  that  he  is  to  form  in  his  peni¬ 
tents,  and  prudence  in  asking  only  opportune  questions  and  ap¬ 
plying  due  remedies.  He  should  have  zeal  for  souls  and  although 
the  hearing  of  nuns’  confessions  is  laborious,  yet  he  should  look 
upon  it  as  a  time  to  bring  pious  souls  closer  to  God.  He  should 
use  great  tact  especially  in  obtaining  confession  of  more  atro¬ 
cious  sins  which  women  naturally  fear  to  mention.  He  should 
have  patience  especially  with  the  scrupulous.27 

He  should  be  studious  in  prayer  and  contemplation  that  he 
might  form  his  penitents.28 

The  confessors  of  religious  women  should  evidently  know 
the  duties  of  the  state  of  life  of  their  penitents,  i.  e.,  resulting 
from  their  vows  and  principal  rules ;  this  is  advisable  but  not 
always  possible,  in'  order  to  direct  them  to  the  particular  spirit 
of  their  order  or  congregation.29  Confessors  of  contemplative 
nuns  should  have  more  knowledge  of  mystical  theology  than 
those  of  ordinary  sisters.  It  should  be  a  special  study  of  the 
confessor  to  see  that  he  acquires  a  greater  knowledge  of  mystical 
theology,  so  as  to  be  of  benefit  to  them.  These  qualities  neither 
can  nor  should  be  dispensed  with.30 

B.  Required  Age — Shortly  after  the  Council  of  Trent,  the 
Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regulars  decided  that  the  ordi¬ 
nary  confessor  of  nuns  should  be  over  forty  years  of  age,31 

26  Pellizzarius,  Tractatus  De  Monialibus,  Cap.  X,  n.  153  (ed.  Venice, 

1651).  cf.  Joder,  Beichtvateramt  in  Frauenldostern,  AKKR,  78,  p. 

669. 

27  ibid.  n.  154-162. 

28  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  140. 

29  Creusen,  op.  cit.  n.  100. 

so  Boudinhon,  loc.  cit.,  p.  338. 

31  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  in  una  Venetiarum,  May  2,  1617;  June  7,  1620; 

Ferraris,  v.  Monialis,  V,  n.  49,  p.  1106;  cf.  Hizette,  Confessions  Des 

Religieuses,  p.  51, 


152 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


and  the  Congregation  of  the  Council  extended  this  requirement 
to  the  extraordinary  confessor.32 

It  was  on  such  decision  that  Benedict  XIV33  prescribed  for 
the  extraordinary  confessor  of  a  community  or  the  special  con¬ 
fessor  of  an  individual,  the  same  qualities.  He  stated  that  at 
no  time  was  it  doubted  that  in  such  priests  there  should  be 
maturity  of  years,  integrity  of  morals  and  the  light  of  prudence, 
as  is  admitted  by  all.  What  he  says  of  the  extraordinary  con¬ 
fessor  applies  “a  fortiori”  to  the  ordinary  confessor,34  although 
it  was  disputed  as  to  whether  the  maturity  of  age  of  the  extra¬ 
ordinary  after  the  constitution  “Pastoralis  Curae”  was  the 
forty  years  of  the  ordinary  confessor.35  But  this  age  has  been 
retained  without  question  as  the  rule  for  all  confessors  of 
religious  women,  even  of  simple  vows.36  The  discipline  of  the 
Church  was  constant  in  this  matter  and  the  decree,  “Cum  de 
Sacramentalibus”  explicitly  required  40  years,  At  the  same 
time  it  gave  the  right  to  choose  priests  below  that  age  if  they 
excelled  in  other  qualities.37  This  decree  settled  the  dispute  as 
to  the  age.  It  also  freed  the  Ordinary  from  the  necessity  of 
obtaining  dispensation  of  the  Congregation  of  Bishops  and 
Regulars  to  choose  priests  below  that  age.  But  it  made  the 
latter  a  matter  of  conscience  with  the  bishops.  The  legislation 
of  the  Code  is  the  same  on  these  points. 

This  age  gives  the  presumption  of  greater  knowledge,  and 
maturer  judgment  and  spirituality  necessary  for  such  a  min¬ 
istry.38  As  a  presumption,  it  may  not  correspond  to  reality, 
since  these  qualities  can  be  anticipated  or  retarded.39 

The  priest  should  have  attained  forty  complete  years.  In 
computing  this  time,  the  first  day  is  not  included40  and  the 

32  S.  C.  Cone.,  in  Cosentina,  Nov.  26,  1689;  lib.  39,  Decret.  fol.  340; 

Ferraris,  loc.  cit. 

33  Const.  Pastoralis  Curae,  $9;  FJC,  n.  388. 

34  Hizette,  op.  cit.,  p.  51. 

35  Boudinhon,  op.  cit.,  p.  337. 

3«  Hizette,  loc.  cit. 

87  Art.  VIII;  AAS  V,  p.  63. 

88  Bastien,  op.  cit.,  n.  363. 

89  Boudinhon,  loc.  cit. 

40  Can.  34,  $  3,  3°. 


Qualities  of  the  Ordinary  and  Extraordinary  153 

Confessor 

priest  would  be  capable  of  assuming  the  office  juridically  only 
at  midnight  of  his  fortieth  birthday.  Thus  a  priest  born  on 
April  30,  1900,  could  not  take  office  until  midnight  between 
the  30th  of  April  and  the  first  of  May,  1940.  For  a  just  motive, 
however,  the  Ordinary  can  dispense  from  the  requirement  of 
age.  The  present  Code  does  not  explicitly  make  it  a  matter  of 
conscience  for  the  bishop,  as  the  decree  “Cum  de  Sacramentali- 
bus”  did,  in  using  the  power  to  dispense.  The  Code  only  re¬ 
quires  an  exercise  of  prudent  judgment.  Sufficient  reason  for 
such  a  dispensation  would  be  the  difficulties  in  sending  another, 
the  scarcity  of  disposable  priests  and  suitable  personnel,  a 
variety  of  languages  spoken  in  the  convent,  needing  a  priest 
who  could  understand  them.41  In  such  cases  the  lack  of  age 
must  be  supplied  by  good  moral  integrity  and  prudence,  which 
even  age  does  not  always  guarantee.42  It  will  be  more  difficult 
to  appoint  a  younger  priest'  as  a  permanent  ordinary  or  extra¬ 
ordinary  confessor,  than  in  a  passing  case,  i.  e.,  in  time  of 
retreats,  in  which  he  will  have  sufficient  integrity  and  prudence 
for  such  an  appointment.  Neither  the  age  nor  the  qualities  of 
soul,  if  lacking,  affect  the  validity  of  the  absolution,43  to  assure 
the  special  approbation  of  the  bishop  to  hear  these  religious 
women  suffices.44  A  priest  validly  delegated  and  appointed  by 
the  Ordinary,  can  acquiesce  in  the  judgment  of  the  latter  and 
hear  confessions  with  a  safe  conscience,  although  he  seems  to 
himself  to  be  devoid  of  some  of  the  qualities  required  for  a 
lawful  appointment.45 

41  Boudinhon,  loc.  cit.;  Papi,  'Religious  in  Church  Law,  p.  60. 

42  Bastien,  op.  cit.,  n.  263;  Augustine,  A  Commentary  on  Canon  Law,  III, 

p.  165. 

43  Vermeersch,  Per.  VII,  p.  92. 

44  Can.  876,  $  1. 

45  Vermeersch,  loc.  cit. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 


RULES  TO  BE  OBSERVED  BY  THE  ORDINARY  AND 
EXTRAORDINARY  CONFESSOR. 

CANON  524. 

§  3.  Confessarii  religiosarum  turn  ordinarii  turn  ex¬ 
traordinary  interno  vel  exterao  communitatis  regimini 
nullo  mode  sese  immisceant. 

This  is  by  no  means  a  new  prescription  of  the  Code.  It 
was  the  object  of  many  replies  of  the  Congregation  of  Bishops 
and  Regulars,1  which  decided  at  various  times  that  the  con¬ 
fessor  had  no  right  to  meddle  in  the  external  affairs  of  a  com¬ 
munity.  It  follows  from  this,  that  the  office  of  a  delegated 
superior,  could  not  be  joined  to  that  of  confessor.2 

The  cardinals  of  this  congregation  refused  September  7, 
1797,  (1)  to  approve  the  practice  of  a  superioress  making  known 
the  faults  of  the  sisters;  (2)  to  permit  the  confessor  to  impose 
disclipinary  punishments  upon  them;  (3)  to  allow  the  confessor 
to  be  in  any  way  the  superior  of  the  convent.3  In  approv¬ 
ing  the  constitutions  of  the  Servants  of  the  Immaculate 
Heart  of  Mary  of  Lerida,  a  congregation  of  simple  vows,  this 
congregation  commanded  that  a  clause,  stating  that  in  certain 
affairs  the  confessor  could  be  consulted,  must  be  deleted.  The 
reason  given  was  that  the  confessor  should  have  no  part  in  the 
administration  of  the  institute.4 

This  constant  discipline  of  this  congregation  became  the 
existing  law  which  was  repeated  and  reenforced  by  its  ineor- 

1  Bastien,  Directoire  Canonique,  n.  365. 

2  Joder,  Beichtvateramt,  AKKR,  79,  p.  457. 

a  Joder,  loc.  cit. 

4  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Lerida ,  Aug.  13,  1887,  ad.  15;  “  Consult atio  autem 
confessarii  expugnatur .  Confessarius  enim  administrationi  institutis 
se  ingerere  minime  debet;”  cf.  Battandier,  Guide  Canonique,  n.  262; 
Joder,  AKKR,  loc.  cit.;  Hizette,  Confessions  des  Religieuses,  p.  54. 

[154] 


Rules  to  be  Observed  by  the  Ordinary  and  155 
Extraordinary  Confessor 

poration  into  the  decree  “Cum  de  Sacramentalibus, ’ ’ 5  which 
forbade  all  confessors  of  nuns  and  sisters  to  meddle  in  the 
internal  or  external  government  of  the  community.  This  dis¬ 
tinction  of  internal  and  external,  although  contained  implicitly 
in  preceding  decrees  of  the  Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regu¬ 
lars,  was  explicitly  stated  for  the  first  time  by  the  decree  “Cum 
de  Sacramentalibus.  ”  The  Code  gives  us  this  decree  without 
change,  except  for  brevity  and  by  adapting  it  to  the  terminology 
of  the  new  legislation. 

Purpose  of  the  Law. 

1. — The  Church  does  not  want  the  religious  to  be  subject 
to  too  many  superiors.  2. — The  confessor  is  bound  by  the  most 
strict  seal  of  the  confessional,  which  should  not  be  betrayed  in 
any  manner  or  even  suspected.  3. — Since  the  bishop  gives  con¬ 
fessors  jurisdiction  for  the  internal  forum  only  their  mission 
is  restricted  entirely  to  that  forum.  Therefore,  the  authority 
of  which  they  are  depositories  does  not  confer  upon  them  the 
quality  to  occupy  themselves  in  the  internal  or  external  admin¬ 
istration  of  the  house.  4. — The  good  of  souls  who  are  entrusted 
to  them  or  who  entrust  themselves  to  them,  requires  that  they 
avoid  giving  the  least  suspicion  of  lack  of  perfect  discretion. 
The  religious  might  otherwise  be  estranged  from  having  re¬ 
course  to  their  ministrations  by  the  thought  that  in  one  person 
are  united  the  confessor  and  the  superior  of  the  house.6 

The  Subject  of  the  Law. 

The  law  makes  this  prohibition  only  for  the  ordinary  and 
extraordinary  confessor  of  Canon  520,  §  1,  and  Canon  521,  §  1, 
respectively,  that  is,  the  confessors  appointed  to  hear  the  con¬ 
fessions  of  all  the  community.  This  is  a  change  from  the  decree  of 
1913,  which  used  the  words  “omnes  confessarii.”  The  omission  of 
these  words  frees  from  this  prohibition  the  special  confessor  of  a 
particular  religious  (Can.  520,  §  2)  and  the  supplementary  con¬ 
fessors  (Can.  521,  §2).  The  omission  is  evidently  intentional, 

5  n.  X;  A  AS  V,  p.  63;  Confessarii  omnes  sive  monialium  sive  sororum , 
caveant  se  interno  vel  cxterno  communitatis  regimini  sese  immisceant. 

0  Boudinhon,  op.  cit.,  p.  340;  Hizette,  op.  cit.,  p.  55. 


15G 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


according  to  the  axiom  “quod  voluit  expressit,  de  quo  noluit 
tacet.”  The  reason  for  this  is  evident.  Only  the  ordinary  and 
extraordinary  confessors  of  the  community  are  appointed  “ex 
officio”  to  the  community.  It  is  only  before  these  that  the  reli¬ 
gious  must  present  themselves  at  least  for  their  blessing.  The 
other  confessors  are  to  be  chosen  by  the  religious  herself  and 
there  cannot  be  the  same  restriction  for  them.  Thus,  any  part 
they  might  have  in  the  government  of  the  community,  might  in¬ 
fluence  the  choice  of  the  religious,  but  in  no  way  would  it  make 
the  Sacrament  of  Penance  odious  to  those  who  freely  and  spon- 
taneously  requested  them. 

Forbidden  Interventions. 

A.  Matters  which  concern  the  internal  government  would 
be  those  for  the  promotion  of  the  observance  of  the  rules  and 
constitutions  by  other  means  than  those  of  the  internal  forum,7 
i.  e.,  the  direction  of  a  family  of  religious,  as  such,  in  regard  to 
the  daily  order  to  be  observed,  the  distribution  of  offices  or 
duties,  the  administration  of  the  temporal  goods,  etc.8 

These  belong  properly  to  the  province  of  the  superioress 
and  not  the  confessor.9  The  confessor  is  there  primarily  to 
aid  individual  souls  by  his  attention,  help  and  experience.10 

If  questioned  by  the  religious  in  regard  to  the  constitu¬ 
tions,  he  can  only  state  their  obligation,  for  the  observance  of 
poverty,  etc.,  will  vary  with  institutes  and  superiors.  Provid¬ 
ing  the  religious  superioress  does  not  offend  by  laxity  or  sever¬ 
ity,  the  confessor  can  only  state  that  the  religious  should  abide 
by  the  decision  of  the  superioress,  even  though  the  confessor 
might  think  it  more  advisable  to  do  otherwise.  He  cannot  hin¬ 
der  the  rule  of  the  superioress  in  any  way.11  The  confessor  in 
these  matters,  should  be  very  careful,  for  he  can  get  himself 
into  great  trouble,  because  of  the  seal  of  the  confessional,  even  in 
matters  of  advice  given  in  confession,  according  to  the  decree 

1  Hizette,  Confessions  des  Beligieuses,  p.  55. 

8  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  De  Beligiosis,  n.  49. 

y  Brandys,  Bechtsbuch,  p.  160. 

1°  Leitner,  Handbuch  ( Dritte  Lieferung),  p.  361. 

11  Brandys,  op.  cit.,  p.  160. 


Rules  to  be  Observed  by  the  Ordinary  and  157 
Extraordinary  Confessor 

of  1915. 12  Internal  regime  here  must  not  be  understood  as 
spiritual  direction  of  an  individual  religious,  which  properly 
belongs  to  the  confessor.13  If  the  confessor  is  asked  by  the 
superioress  to  promote  her  counsels  to  the  religious,  the  con¬ 
fessor  should  use  the  greatest  discretion  in  carrying  out  his 
part  and  should  avoid  doing  anything  in  which  he  would  have 
to  take  the  initiative.14 

By  action  contrary  to  this,  experience  has  proven  that  he 
can  cause  great  trouble  and  diminish  the  authority  of  the  reli¬ 
gious  superioress.15  If  a  superioress  seeks  advice  in  regard  to 
the  changing  or  rejection  of  a  religious,  she  should  always 
address  herself  to  another  priest  than  the  confessor.  But  if 
she  should  have  recourse  to  him  then  the  circumstances  of  the 
matter  should  be  explained  in  such  a  way  that  the  confessor 
can  form  his  judgment  without  knowing  the  person  in  question. 
The  superioress  should  not  be  surprised  if  the  priest  refuses 
to  give  any  advice  whatsoever  and  advises  her  to  address  her¬ 
self,  even  if  this  is  done  by  writing  to  some  other  competent 
person.  If  a  religious  should  ask  about  the  force  of  these  coun¬ 
sels  of  the  superioress,  the  confessor  should  confine  himself  to 
the  statement  of  the  precise  obligations  of  the  counsel  resulting 
from  moral  theology  and  canon  law.  He  cannot  make  discip¬ 
linary  measures,  which  agree  more  with  his  own  temperament 
or  personal  views.16 

The  confessor  has  not  the  power  to  dispense  from  the  obli¬ 
gation  of  going  to  Mass  on  Sundays  and  days  of  precept,  or 
from  ecclesiastical  laws  of  fast  and  abstinence  unless  it  is  evident 
that  he  has  received  the  necessary  delegation  from  the  Ordi¬ 
nary.17  This  was  expressly  forbidden  before  the  Code  to  the 

1 2  Instr.  S.  Officii,  ad  Eev.  mos  locorum  Ordinarios  familiarumque  religi- 

osarum  moderatores  super  inviolabili  sanctitate  sigilli  sacramentalis ; 
June  9,  1915;  Cf.  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  II,  n.  169;  Cf.  Can. 
889,  890. 

13  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  Joe.  cit.;  Lanslots,  Handbook  of  Canon  Law ,  p.  157. 

14  Boudinhon,  CC,  36,  p.  340  ff ;  Hizette,  o.  c.,  p.  55  ff. 

15  Bastien,  loc.  cit.,  n.  365. 

16  Creusen,  Eeligieux  et  Eeligieuses,  n.  100. 

17  Battandier,  Guide  Canonique,  n.  261;  Confessarius  non  habet  facultatem 

dispensandi  a  jejuniis  ecclesiasticis,  Lanslots,  Handbook  of  Canon 
Law,  p.  157. 


158  Confessors  of  Female  Religious 

confessors  of  the  Dominican  Tertiaries  of  Przemysl,  March  21, 
1885. 18 

This  power,  in  the  terms  of  Canon  1245,  §  1,  is  proper  and 
requires  jurisdiction  in  the  external  forum.  In  the  first  place 
it  belongs  to  him  who  has  jurisdiction  for  the  community  of 
simple  vows,  whether  of  diocesan  or  pontifical  right.  That  per¬ 
son  is  the  Ordinary.  The  pastor  has  equivalent  right  if  the 
communities  are  not  withdrawn  from  his  jurisdiction.  There¬ 
fore,  if  the  pastor  were  the  confessor,  whether  ordinary  or 
extraordinary,  he  could  dispense  from  these  laws.  Ordinarily, 
if  the  community  has  a  particular  chaplain,  he  should  receive 
the  necessary  powers  from  the  Ordinary.  The  confessor  surely 
can,  in  particular  cases,  interpret  the  law  and  declare  that  in 
certain  cases  they  are  not  obliged  in  virtue  of  the  circum¬ 
stances.19 

Although  it  seems  more  preferable  that  the  confessor  and 
not  the  superioress  should  excuse  from  the  recitation  of  the 
office  and  should  choose  their  books  for  spiritual  reading,  it  is 
more  expedient  and  more  in  order  that  this  be  reserved  to  the 
superioress.  It  is  in  effect  an  act  of  community  life  passing 
into  dominative  power.  This  was  decided  by  the  correction  of  the 
constitutions  of  the  Sisters  of  Our  Saviour  and  of  the  Blessed 
Virgin  of  Limoges.20  These  confessors  are  also  warned  not  to 
exercise  jurisdiction  in  the  external  forum,  e.  g.,  by  censuring 
the  religious,  settling  affairs  or  reserving  cases  which  require 
ecclesiastical  trial.21 

B.  Matters  of  the  External  Government. — These  belong  to 
the  province  of  the  local  Ordinary,  the  regular  superior  or  their 
delegates.22  Those  which  are  forbidden,  would  be  the  extension 
of  the  congregation,  foundation  or  suppression  of  the  houses, 

18  ad.  20.  Augustine,  III,  p.  165. 

19  Bastien,  op.  cit.,  368;  Battandier,  loc.  cit. 

20  Soeurs  du  S.  Sauveur  et  de  la  Ste.  Yierge,  Limoges,  Aug.  12,  1891, 

ad  10;  “Melius  confessario  quam  superiorissae  committuntur  facili¬ 
tates  dispensandi  sororum  aliquam  ab  officii  recitatione,  vel  eligendi 
libros  asceticos  pro  lectione  spirituali.’ ’  This  was  corrected  in 
May,  1904;  Cf.  Battandier,  loc.  cit. 

21  Can.  893,  $  1 ;  Augustine,  III,  p.  165. 

22  Schafer,  Ordensrecht,  p.  119,  note  2. 


Rules  to  be  Observed  by  the  Ordinary  and  159 
Extraordinary  Confessor 

etc.23  This  prohibition  would  not  include  the  ministrations 
which  can  be  given  by  the  confessor  by  common  law  or  epis¬ 
copal  delegation,  in  the  quality  of  chaplain  or  procurator,  etc.24 
These  functions  concern  the  entire  community  and  do  not,  of 
their  nature,  cause  any  indiscreet  meddling  in  the  government 
or  affairs  of  the  community.25  Bastien  says  neither  would  the 
confessor,  upon  request,  be  prohibited  to  give  counsel  in  regard 
to  the  administration  of  the  goods  or  the  government  of  the 
community.26 

The  confessor  cannot  oblige  penitents  to  receive  his  direc¬ 
tion  of  their  conscience,  but  only  that  they  fulfill  the  prescrip¬ 
tions  required  as  conditions  for  absolution.  They  retain  the 
liberty  to  seek  this  direction,  i  .e.,  clearer  advice  and  encourage¬ 
ment,  from  another  priest.27 

The  confessor  should  respect  and  make  the  religious  respect 
the  common  law  and  statutes  in  regard  to  the  place  and  manner 
in  which  confessions  are  to  be  heard.28 

23  Hizette,  op.  cit.,  p.  55. 

24  Schafer,  Ordensrecht,  p.  119. 

25  Boudinhon,  op.  cit.,  p.  341. 

26  Bastien,  loc.  cit.,  n.  231. 

27  Creusen,  Religieux  et  Eeligieuses,  n.  100. 

28  Creusen,  ibid. 


CHAPTER  XIV. 


REMOVAL  OF  CONFESSORS. 

CANON  527. 

0 

Loci  Ordinarius,  ad  normam  Can.  880,  potest,  gravem 
ob  causam,  religiosarum  confessarium  tarn  ordinarium 
quam  extraordinarium  amovere,  etiamsi  monasterium 
regularibus  subdatur  et  ipse  sacerdos  a  confessionibus  sit 
regularis,  nec  tenetur  causam  amotionis  cuiquam  signifi- 
care,  excepta  Apostolica  Sede,  si  ab  ea  requiratur;  de 
amotione  autem  debet  Superiorem  regularem  monere,  si 
moniales  regularibus  subdantur. 

This  canon  seems  to  be  new  law,  as  is  evident  from  the  fact 
that  the  Code  contains  in  its  footnotes  no  sources  to  this  canon. 
Formerly,  however,  the  bishop  was  permitted  by  Gregory  XV 
in  the  Constitution  “  Inscrutabili,  ”  February  5,  1622,  to  warn 
regular  superiors  for  a  reasonable  cause  to  remove  confessors 
of  nuns  subject  to  them.  Upon  refusal  or  neglect,  the  bishop 
had  the  right  to  remove  the  said  confessors  without  interference 
as  often  as  he  judged  necessary.1 

Causes  for  Removal. 

The  canon  requires  a  grave  cause  for  removal.  Such  would 
be,  e.  g.,  if;  the  lives  of  the  confessors  were  a  source  of  scandal 
or  immoral ;  if  they  had  committed  a  crime  for  which,  in  the 
reasonable  judgment  of  the  bishop,  they  should  be  suspended 
from  hearing  confessions,  since  the  principal  quality  of  the 
minister  of  the  Sacrament  of  Penance  is  integrity  of  life  and 
morals.  For  such  causes  pertaining  to  the  Sacrament  of  Pen¬ 
ance,  the  bishop  could  remove  or  suspend  confessors  approved 

i  Gregory  XV,  Const.  Inscrutabili,  $5;  FJC  n.  199;  cf.  Augustine,  III, 
p.  169. 


[160] 


Removal  of  Confessors 


161 


by  himself,  from  hearing  confessions  of  nuns  and  sisters.2  Other 
reasons  sufficient  for  removal,  would  be  disregard  of  an  in¬ 
terdict  or  the  discovery  of  irregularities  by  the  bishop  at  the 
time  of  the  canonical  visitation  ;3  or  the  abuse  of  his  office  by 
violation  of  Canon  524,  §  3,  which  prohibits  his  meddling  in 
the  internal  or  external  government  of  the  community. 

Since  the  bishop  is  the  one  who  grants  jurisdiction  in  all 
cases  for  the  hearing  of  the  confessions  of  religious  women,  his 
revocation  of  this  jurisdiction  is  always  valid.4  If,  by  this  revo¬ 
cation,  he  does  an  injustice  to  the  confessor,  the  Holy  See  can 
correct  him  for  this  abuse.  The  same  principle  holds  if  not  the 
confessor  but  the  community  suffers  the  injustice.  This  canon 
is  modeled  on  Canon  454,  §  5, 5  whereby  pastors  who  are  regu¬ 
lars,  can  always  be  removed,  either  by  the  bishop  or  the  superior. 
The  one  removing  must  give  notification  to  the  other,  but  the 
consent  of  the  latter  is  not  necessary.  Neither  is  bound  to  make 
known  the  cause  of  the  removal  to  the  other  or  in  the  least  to 
defend  it,  preserving,  of  course,  the  right  of  the  other  of  making 
recourse  “in  devolutivo”  to  the  Holy  See.  The  same  principles 
apply  in  the  removal  of  the  confessor  and  the  Ordinary  is  not 
bound  to  state  the  cause  of  removal  to  anyone  but  the  Holy 
See,  and  only  when  this  is  required  of  him  by  the  latter.  There¬ 
fore,  the  Holy  See  will  hear  appeals  if  warranted  by  a  removal 
without  sufficient  reason.  The  Apostolic  See  will  probably  in¬ 
quire  about  the  reasons  for  removal,  if  any  of  the  interested 
parties  has  had  recourse  to  it  against  the  decree  of  removal. 
This  complaint  to  the  Holy  See  is,  of  course,  permissible,  but 
has  no  suspensive  effect,  i.  e.,  until  the  Holy  See  has  decided,  it 
does  not  prevent  the  local  Ordinary  from  removing  the  con¬ 
fessor.6 

The  Ordinary  must,  however,  notify  the  regular  superior 
upon  removal  of  confessors  of  nuns  subject  to  regulars,  for 

2  Clement  X,  Const.  Superna,  June  21,  1670,  $6;  FJC,  n.  246. 

3  S.  C.  P.  F.,  Dec.  11,  1839,  ad  4;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1907),  n.  892. 

4  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Dec.  9,  1740;  Bizzarri,  p.  350. 

5  Augustine,  III,  p.  169. 

0  Papi,  Religious  in  Church  Law,  p.  63;  Augustine,  III,  169. 


162 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


the  regular  superior  has,  under  Canon  525,  the  right  of  present¬ 
ing  another  confessor  to  succeed  the  one  deposed.7 

Simultaneous  Removal  of  All  Confessors  of  a  Convent. 

CANON  880. 

§  3.  Non  tamen  licet  Episcopo,  inconsulta  Sede  Apos- 
tolica,  si  de  domo  formata  agatur,  omnibus  alicuius  re- 
ligiosae  domus  confessariis  una  simul  iurisdictionem  ad- 
imere. 

As  Augustine  states,  the  bishop  “may  not  remove  all  con¬ 
fessors  of  the  same  religious  house  at  one  time,  because  such  a 
removal  would  be  not  only  senseless,  but  injurious  to  the 
spiritual  welfare  of  the  nuns  and  the  moral  character  of  the 
priests  involved.”8 


7  Augustine,  IV,  p.  280.  ff. 

8  Augustine,  III,  169. 


CHAPTER  XV. 


SUPPLEMENTARY  CONFESSORS. 

The  supplementary  confessors  had  their  origin  in  various 
responses  of  the  Congregation  of  the  Council  from  1665-1672 
referred  to  and  confirmed  by  Benedict  XIV,1  who  granted  to 
nuns  the  right,  under  certain  conditions,  to  ask  for  priests 
approved  for  the  confessions  of  nuns.  This  system,  however, 
had  its  difficulties,  to  remove  which  Leo  XIII  exhorted  the 
bishops  to  officially  designate  supplementary  confessors,  living 
in  the  neighborhood,  and  give  them  faculties  for  the  different 
communities  near  which  they  resided.  His  purpose  was  that 
the  sisters  could  thus  easily  have  recourse  for  the  Sacrament  of 
Penance.2  The  bishops  responded  to  this  and  drew  up  official 
lists  of  supplementary  confessors  for  this  purpose.3  The  actual 
use  of  this  right  to  ask  for  such  a  confessor,  unfortunately  be¬ 
came  a  dead  letter  in  a  great  number  of  communities.  This  was 
due  not  to  the  opposition  of  the  superioresses,  but  to  public 
opinion  created  in  the  communities  in  favor  of  the  absolutely 
exclusive  use  of  one  confessor  by  all.  Thus  a  religious,  who 
requested  a  supplementary  confessor,  more  or  less  openly,  was 
considered  as  rather  singular,  strange,  pretentious  or  an  opposi¬ 
tionist.  This  moral  pressure  made  many  religious  timorous  of 
the  contemptuous  judgments  upon  their  liberty  in  a  matter  so 
delicate.4  As  a  result  to  protect  the  liberty  of  conscience,  the 
Holy  See  in  the  decree,  “Cum  de  Sacramentalibus * ’ 5  forbade 
the  sisters  to  speak  among  themselves,  concerning  the  confessions 
of  particular  religious  and  especially  to  criticize  those  who  con- 

1  Vermeersch,  Per.  V,  p.  (10). 

2  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Deer.  “  Quemadmodum,”  Dec.  17,  1890,  ad  4;  Col. 

S.  C.  P.  F.  (1907),  n.  1745;  cf.  Boudinhon,  CC,  36,  p.  275;  Hizette, 
Confessions  des  Beligieuses,  p.  35. 

3  Hizette,  loc.  ext. 

4  Mothon,  Traite  de  la  Confession  Sacramentelle,  p.  25  ff. 

5  S.  C.  De  Rel.  Feb.  3,  1913,  n.  4,  n.  12;  AAS  V,  63. 

[163] 


164 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


fessed  to  a  confessor  other  than  the  appointed  one.6  Violation 
of  this  was  to  be  punished  by  their  superior  or  the  Ordinary, 
according  to  the  gravity  and  circumstances.  The  present  Code 
confirms  the  anterior  legislation  intending  to  extirpate  at  any 
price,  abuses  which,  notwithstanding  the  decree  of  the  Holy 
See,  unfortunately  continue  to  exist  despite  the  danger  of  in¬ 
terference  by  the  superior,  whether  General,  Provincial  or  Lo¬ 
cal.7 

CANON  521. 

§  2.  Ordinarii  locorum,  in  quibus  religiosarum  com- 
munitates  exsistunt,  aliquot  sacerdotes  pro  singulis  domi- 
bus  designent,  ad  quos  pro  Sacramento  poenitentiae  in 
casibus  particularibus  recurrere  eae  facile  possint,  quin 
necessarium  sit  ipsum  Ordinarium  toties  quoties  adire. 

Appointment  by  the  Loeal  Ordinary. 

Even  under  the  decree,  “  Quemadmodum,  ”  it  was  the  local 
Ordinary,  who  was  to  grant  these  confessors  to  communities. 
It  was  not  a  matter  of  obligation,  however,  until  the  decree 
“Cum  de  Sacramentalibus ’ ’  of  the  Congregation  for  Religious 
in  1913,  upon  which  the  present  canon  is  based.  If  the  Ordinary 
neglects  to  do  this,  the  superioress  should  ask  him  to  appoint 
two  or  three  priests  in  the  neighborhood,  with  the  necessary 
faculties  to  hear  the  confessions  of  the  religious  of  the  commu¬ 
nity  when  called  upon.  For  religious  subject  to  regulars,  the 
Superior  General  or  the  Provincial  has,  on  canonical  visits,  the 
grave  obligation  of  seeing  that  these  religious  have  obtained 
from  the  local  Ordinary  the  extraordinary  and  supplementary 
confessors  for  every  community  or  house.8  The  local  Ordinary 
alone  has  the  right  to  appoint  the  supplementary  confessors, 
even  for  the  nuns  subject  to  regulars.9  The  superioress,  of 
course,  cannot  appoint,  for  that  is  entirely  outside  of  her  pro¬ 
vince  and  competency.10 

ft  Hizette,  op.  cit.,  p.  62. 

7  Bastien,  op.  cit.,  n.  359. 

8  S.  C.  De  Rel.  Feb.  3,  1913,  n.  4;  AAS  V,  p.  62;  Hizette,  op.  cit.,  p.  36; 

Mothon,  Traite  de  la  Confession  Sacramentelle,  p.  23. 

ft  Vermeersch-Creus^n,  Epit.  I,  n.  594. 

10  Bastien,  Directoire  Canonique,  n.  359. 


Supplementary  Confessors 


165 


Faculties  of  These  Confessors. 

To  determine  just  how  far  these  extend,  the  faculties  and 
their  wording  must  be  examined.  Confessors  appointed  to  hear 
the  confessions  of  religious  of  one  community  cannot  hear  those 
of  another.11  If,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Ordinary  has  granted 
faculties  in  some  such  terms  as  <(  etiam  ad  monialium ”  or  better 
t(  etiam  ad  omnium  religiosarum  confessiones  audiendas”  and 
has  not  made  a  special  condition  or  inserted  a  restrictive  clause, 
the  confessor  appointed  for  a  community  of  Dominicans,  could 
hear  the  confessions  of  a  community  of  Benedictines.12 

Rules  for  These  Confessors. 

They  are  habitually  delegated  for  the  particular  commu¬ 
nity13  or  house,  but  they  are  not  to  become  the  ordinary  con¬ 
fessor  of  the  community.  The  canon  requires  that  more  than 
one  be  appointed,  i.  e.,  at  least  two  “Pluralis  locutio,  duorum 
numero  est  contenta.  ’  ’ 14 

There  is  nothing  to  prevent  each  of  these  from  fulfilling 
this  office  for  several  communities  if  the  Ordinary  so  desires.10 
Thus  the  deans  and  regular  superiors  of  the  same  or  another 
institute  could  be  given  faculties  as  supplementaries  for  the 
convents  in  their  territory.16  Although  these  supplementary 
confessors  are  particularly  approved  to  hear  the  confession  of 
the  religious  of  the  community,  it  would  be  well  if  they  would 
not  fulfill  this  office,  unless  requested  by  the  religious.17  They 
are  given  the  name  of  supernumerary  confessors  “Confessarii 
adjuncti”  18  by  the  Congregation  for  Religious. 

11  Clement  X,  Const.  Superna,  June  21,  1670,  $4;  FJC  n.  246;  Innocent 

XIII,  Const.  Apostolici  Ministerii,  May  23,  1723;  FJC  n.  280,  $19; 

S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Deer.  Tridentina,  ad  1,  Jan.  29,  1847 ;  Bizzarri,  p. 

116;  Aertnys,  Theol.  Mor.  (1906)  II,  n.  234;  Marc,  Institutiones 

Morales  (1885),  II,  n.  1764. 

12  Cf.  Augustine,  III,  p.  160. 

13  Cocclii,  II,  pars  II,  n.  41. 

14  R.  J.  n  VI°,  Reg.  40. 

15  Papi,  Eeligious  in  Church  Law,  p.  53;  Blat,  II,  pars  II,  n.  584; 

Priimmer,  Manuale  Juris  Canonici,  n.  190. 

16  Creusen,  Eeligieux  et  Eeligieuses,  n.  94. 

ii  Creusen,  op.  cit.,  n.  94. 

18  Instr.  S,  C,  De  Rel.  Feb.  6,  1924,  De  Clausura,  III,  2,  g.  AAS  XVI,  95; 

II  Monitore;  XXXVI  (1924),  p.  70. 


166 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


These  confessors  are  not  bound  by  the  law  of  the  three-year 
removal.19  Neither  is  a  definite  age  nor  any  other  conditions, 
except  those  necessary  for  the  right,  fruitful  and  salutary  ex¬ 
ercise  of  their  ministry,  required  of  them.20  The  confessor  for 
a  community  should  be  so  situated,  that  by  reason  of  time, 
place  and  distance,  the  request  of  the  religious  would  not  be 
hard  to  fulfill.  Otherwise  the  appointment  of  such  confessors 
would  be  useless.  The  religious  could  protest  against  such 
appointment.  It  is  very  evident  that  if  the  Ordinary  makes  a 
list  of  such  supplementary  confessors,  it  should  be  made  known 
to  the  community.21 

It  is  the  superior  who  is  to  regularly  call  the  confessor, 
but  this  should  not  be  urged  too  strictly.22  If  a  religious  de¬ 
sires  to  benefit  by  the  ministry  of  one  of  these  supplementary 
confessors,  she  should  not  then  address  the  bishop  herself,  but 
present  her  request  through  the  superioress  of  the  house  in 
which  she  resides.23 

Confession  made  in  the  convent  to  such  priests  unknown  to 
the  superioress,  are  certainly  valid.  Considering  Canon  522, 
where  the  permission  of  the  superioress  is  not  necessary  for  a 
licit  confession  to  a  simple  confessor,  “a  pari”  such  a  con¬ 
fession  to  a  supplementary  confessor  is  also  lawful.24 

Sufficient  Reason  to  Ask  for  This  Confessor. 

It  would  seem  from  the  wording  of  the  law  “pro  Sacra¬ 
mento  poenitentiae”  that  the  religious  should  have  recourse  to 
the  supplementary  confessor  only  for  matters  connected  with 
the  Sacrament  of  Penance.  Therefore,  religious  could  not  re¬ 
quest  a  supplementary  confessor  merely  for  direction  and  coun¬ 
sel  in  other  matters  not  touching  upon  the  sacrament.25  This 

19  Mothon,  op.  cit.,  p.  23;  II  Monitore,  XVIII,  p.  534. 

20  Fanfani,  De  Jure  Beligiosorum,  n.  140;  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.,  I, 

n.  594. 

21  Hizette,  op.  cit.,  p.  37. 

22  Genicot,  Theol.  Mor.  II,  n.  341,  note  2. 

23  s.  c.  EE  et  RR,  Malacitana,  Aug.  17,  1891;  ad  1;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F. 

(1907),  n.  1763;  Choupin,  L’Etat  Beligieux ,  p.  225;  Mothon,  op.  cit., 
p.  24. 

24  Vermeersch,  Per.  VII,  p.  90;  cf.  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  226. 

25  Blat,  II  pars  II,  n.  584. 


Supplementary  Confessors 


167 


is  a  privilege,  however,  and  should  not  be  interpreted  too 
strictly.  Therefore,  the  following  reasons  would  seem  to  be 
sufficient;  (1)  if  the  sister  had  not  gone  to  the  ordinary  con¬ 
fessor  at  the  proper  time  and  cannot  go  to  him  now.  This, 
however,  should  not  become  the  rule,  so  as  to  make  the  sup¬ 
plementary  confessor  almost  the  ordinary  confessor;  (2)  if  the 
religious  had  greater  confidence  in  a  religious  confessor;  (3) 
the  fear  that  a,  priest  of  her  own  order  would  not  be  impartial 
in  his  decision;  (4)  the  desire  for  greater  spiritual  consolation 
or  progress.26  If  the  confessor  realizes  that  he  has  been  called 
wdthout  sufficient  reason  of  spiritual  necessity  or  utility,  he  can¬ 
not  legitimately  exercise  his  office.  He  is  bound  in  conscience 
to  refuse  to  hear  the  confession  of  the  religious,  whom  he  should 
prudently  dismiss,27  although  he  would  be  justified  in  arousing 
in  the  penitent  the  required  dispositions. 

In  Particular  Cases.  These  would  occur  when  a  religious 
wishes  to  call  such  a  confessor  for  the  purpose  of  confession  in  a 
particular  instance,  i.  e.,  not  habitually,  and  with  sufficient  rea¬ 
son.28  Buys  infers  from  these  words  “in  casibus  particularibus 9 ’ 
that  the  supplementary  confessor  could  not  be  called  in  to  hear 
the  confessions  of  the  entire  community.  He  claims  that  this  in¬ 
terpretation  is  more  in  conformity  to  the  history  of  this  canon, 
admitting,  nevertheless,  the  serious  probability  of  the  other  opin¬ 
ion.  A  particular  case  may,  however,  exist  not  only  for  the  indi¬ 
vidual  but  for  the  community,  e.  g.,  if  the  ordinary  confessor  is 
sick  or  impeded  from  coming.  In  such  circumstances  the  super¬ 
ioress  could  call  a  supplementary  confessor  to  hear  the  confes¬ 
sions  of  the  community.30  This  follows  from  (1)  the  fact  that  he 
is  appointed  for  the  confessions  of  these  religious;  (2)  and  for 

Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  136;  cf.  Cocchi,  II  pars  II,  n.  42. 

27  S.  C.  EE  ct  RR,  Feb.  1,  1891,  ad  2;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (1907),  n.  1781; 

cf.  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  n.  594;  Vermeersch,  De  Eel.  II,  n.  231; 
S.  C.  De  Rel.  Cum  de  Sacramentalibus,  Feb.  3,  1913,  n.  13,  AAS  V, 
64;  Boudinhon,  CC,  36,  p.  410;  Mothon,  Traite  de  la  Confession 
Sacramentelle,  p.  26. 

28  Fanfani,  loc.  cit. 

2^  Collationes  Brugensis  (1923),  p.  474;  quoted  by  Creusen,  op.  cit.,  n.  94, 
note  (1). 

30  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  136;  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.,  I,  n.  594. 


168 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


each  house.  (3)  The  religious  can  have  recourse  to  his  admin¬ 
istrations  on  all  occasions  without  the  intervention  of  the  Ordi¬ 
nary  each  time.  (4)  The  terms  of  the  canon  do  not  limit  the 
use  of  this  faculty  to  one  or  many  religious  in  particular.  (5) 
The  superioress  should  furnish  the  religious  with  the  occasion 
to  confess  at  least  once  a  week  (Can.  595,  §  1,  3°).  (6)  The 

intervention  of  the  supplementary  confessor  does  not  constitute 
an  assuming  of  the  office  of  ordinary  confessor,  who  is  pre¬ 
sumed  to  be,  for  some  reason,  temporarily  prevented  from  per¬ 
forming  it.31  In  these  cases  there  would  be  no  necessity  of 
having  recourse  to  the  Ordinary. 

Removal  of  Abuses. 

The  obligation  of  removal  rests  upon  the  bishop,  but  if 
necessary,  he  should  warn  the  religious  that  the  faculty  to  call 
in  a  supplementary  confessor  is  an  exception  to  the  law  of 
the  Church.  The  law  of  Trent  and  Benedict  XIV  still  retain 
their  obligatory  force  in  regard  to  one  confessor  for  each  com¬ 
munity.32 

It  would  certainly  be  an  abuse  if  all  and  every  religious  in 
a  community  had  recourse  habitually  to  the  right  of  confes- 
ing  to  supplementary  confessors.  Thereby  the  law  of  one  con¬ 
fessor  for  a  community  would  be  practically  nullified.33 

Obligations  of  the  Superioress. 

Benedict  XIV  34  had  made  provisions  for  the  refusal  or  neg¬ 
lect  upon  the  part  of  the  regular  superior  and  bishops  to  give 
such  confessors.  The  trouble,  however,  did  not  arise  on  that 
score,  but  from  the  superioresses  of  the  individual  houses.  They 
assumed  to  themselves  the  right  to  restrict  the  use  of  this  right 
by  prohibition  or  irksome  inquiry  into  the  motives  of  the  re- 


31  Creusen,  op.  cit.,  n.  94;  Chelodi,  Jus  Be  Personis,  n.  257;  Priimmer, 

Manuale  Juris  Canonici,  n.  190. 

32  Can.  520  $  1.  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Feb.  1,  1892,  ad  4;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F. 

(1907),  n.  1781;  S.  C.  De  Rel.,  Cum  de  Sacramentalibus,  Feb.  3, 
1913,  n.  13,  AAS  V,  63. 

33  Mothon,  Traite  de  la  Confession  Sacramentelle,  p.  26. 

34  Const.  Pastoralis  Curae,  $$$6,7,8;  FJC  n.  388. 


Supplementary  Confessors 


169 


quest.35  They  sometimes  refused  to  call  a  supplementary  con¬ 
fessor,  even  in  cases  where  the  religious  needed  these  confes¬ 
sors  badly  for  their  conscience  sake.  Such  actions  and  even  the 
manifestation  of  displeasure,  at  the  request,  were  forbidden  by 
Leo  XIII.36  The  Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regulars  cleared 
up  many  difficulties  on  this  matter.37  Its  prescriptions  were 
reenforced  by  the  decree  ‘‘Cum  de  Sacramentalibus * ’38  to  be 
incorporated  by  the  Code  in  Canons  521,  §  3,  522,  523  and  2414, 
which  contains  the  punishment  for  such  violations. 

CANON  521. 

§  3.  Si  qua  religiosa  aliquem  ex  iis  confessariis  ex- 
petat,  uulli  Antistitae  liceat  nec  per  se  nec  per  alios, 
neque  directe  nequeindirecte,  petitionis  rationem  in- 
neque  directe  neque  indirecto,  petitionis  rationem  in- 
ratione  ostendere  se  id  aegre  ferre. 

If  the  religious  asks  for  one  of  the  supplementary  confes¬ 
sors,  the  superioress  cannot  refuse,  etc.  Vermeersch-Creusen,39 
Creusen,40  Bastien  41  and  Papi  42  consider  that  these  words  ‘  ‘  ex 
iis  confessariis  ’  ’  refer  to  all  confessors  mentioned  in  both  §  1  and 
2  of  Canon  521.  Therefore,  a  religious  can  ask  for  both  the 
extraordinary  and  the  supplementary  confessor  of  the  commu¬ 
nity.  They  claim  that  this  is  evident  from  the  whole  setting  of 
the  canon  and  the  wording  of  §  3. 

But  the  opinion  of  Aertnys-Damen  43  and  Kinane,44  that 
these  words  refer  only  to  the  supplementary  confessor  of  §  2 
is  more  in  conformity  to  the  true  spirit  of  the  law  for  the  fol¬ 
lowing  reasons :  I — The  extraordinary  confessor  has  not  per  se 

35  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Quemadmodum,  Dec.  17,  1890,  intro.;  Col.  S.  C. 

P.  F.  (1907),  n.  1745. 

30  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  ibid.,  ad  4. 

37  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Aug.  17,  in  Malacitana ;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (1907), 

n.  1763;  Feb.  1,  1892,  ibid,  n.  1781;  Aug.  5,  1904,  ibid.,  n.  2204. 

38  S.  C.  De  Rel.,  Feb.  3,  1913,  n.  11;  AAS  V,  63. 

39  Epit.,  I,  n.  594;  Periodica,  IX,  p.  12. 

40  Eeligieux  et  Eeligieuses,  n.  94. 

41  Directoire  Canonique  (1923),  n.  359. 

49  Eeligious  in  Church  Law,  p.  53. 

43  Theol.  Mor.,  II,  n.  374. 

44  Irish  Ecclesiastical  Eccord  (1923),  5th  Series,  vol.  XXII,  p.  641  ff. 


170 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


jurisdiction  as  special  confessor  of  a  particular  religious. 
II — The  first  paragraph  of  this  canon  refers  to  the  extraordi¬ 
nary  confessor,  who  is  to  visit  the  convent  to  which  he  is  ap¬ 
pointed,  at  least  four  times  a  year.  On  the  occasion  of  each 
visit  every  member  of  the  community  must  present  herself  to 
him  at  least  for  his  blessing.  In  the  second  paragraph  it  is 
stated  that  certain  confessors,  residing  in  the  neighborhood,  are 
to  be  appointed  to  whom  the  religious  can  have  recourse  in 
individual  cases,  without  applying  to  the  Ordinary.  It  is  the 
natural  interpretation  of  the  words  of  the  third  paragraph 
which  states,  that  if  a  religious  asks  for  a  confessor  of  this 
kind,  the  superioress  cannot  refuse,  etc.,  to  consider  them  as 
applying  only  to  the  second  paragraph.  This  seems  logical 
since  the  second  paragraph  is  the  only  one  in  which  the  reli¬ 
gious  are  given  the  right  to  make  such  a  request.  It  is  only 
the  supplementary  confessors  that  are  appointed  to  be  granted 
on  demand  of  the  religious.  Ill — If  it  was  intended  that  the 
extraordinary  confessor  could  also  be  demanded  by  the  indivi¬ 
dual  religious  the  first  paragraph,  which  defines  his  functions, 
should  have  stated  so.45 

The  superioress  is  not  to  designate  the  confessor,  for  the 
religious  has  the  right  to  choose  anyone  of  those  approved  by 
the  Ordinary.46  On  the  other  hand,  the  religious  could  hardly 
ask  for  one  from  a  distant  place.47  If  she  should  ask  for  one 
not  appointed  for  her  community,  then  it  will  be  necessary  to 
have  recourse  to  the  Ordinary  to  obtain  faculties  for  him. 
This  can  be  made  either  by  the  superioress48  or  the  confessor 
himself.  The  bishop  should  accede  to  the  reasonable  demand 
of  the  religious,  but  he  retains  the  right  and  obligation  of 

45  Kinane,  loc.  cit. 

46  S.  c.  EE  et  RR,  in  Malacitana,  Aug.  17,  1891,  ad  1;  Col.  8.  C.  P.  F. 

(1907),  n.  1763. 

47  Creusen,  Eeligieux  et  Beligieuses,  n.  94. 

43  Benedict  XIV,  Const.  Pastoralis  Curae,  $6;  FJC  n.  388  Battandier, 
Guide  Canonique,  n.  359;  8.  C.  EE  et  RR,  In  Malacitana,  loc.  cit.,  ad 
3;  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  225. 

40  Boudinhon,  CC,  36,  p.  277. 


Supplementary  Confessors 


171 


examining  the  priest  requested  to  see  if  he  satisfies  all  the  re¬ 
quired  conditions.49 

Prohibition  to  the  Superioress. 

Refusal  of  the  request  of  a  religious  is  forbidden.  The 
superioress  must  acquiesce,  even  though  she  feels  certain  that 
there  is  no  necessity  for  the  recourse  and  that  the  demand  is 
based  upon  scruples  or  depression,  etc.,  that  makes  the  religious 
apprehend  it  as  true  necessity.50 

Inquiry  into  the  motive  just  as  refusal  is  also  forbidden 
for  all  superioresses,  whether  major  or  minor.51  Such  inquiry 
cannot  be  made  either  directly  or  personally  or  indirectly,  i.  e., 
through  others.  Thus  neither  the  counsellors,  nor  the  mistress  of 
novices,  nor  any  other  official  or  unofficial  third  party  can  do 
this.52 

Displeasure  at  the  request  cannot  be  shown  in  any  way, 
either  directly  by  asking  the  reason  for  the  petition  or  indirectly 
by  asking  what  the  sister  may  have  done ;  where  she  was ;  who 
spoke  to  her ;  who  wasi  in  the  parlor,  etc.,  even  as  a  joke.  The 
superioress  should  not  shrug  her  shoulders  at  the  request ;  use 
uncharitable  words;  make  faces  at  the  petitioner;  ridicule  her 
or  let  her  feel  it  afterwards. 

Prevention — The  superioress  may  not  prevent  the  religious 
from  fulfilling  her  wish  either  by  not  calling  the  priest  re¬ 
quested,  but  another  or  by  sending  the  religious  on  an  errand 
or  giving  her  work  to  do  at  that  time  or  in  a  distanct  place.53 

The  superioress,  having  a  motive  of  the  external  order,  e. 
g.,  the  intervention  of  this  confessor  weakens  her  authority  or 
causes  discord  in  the  community,  etc.,  cannot  even  then  oppose 
the  exercise  of  his  ministry  if  he  is  appointed  for  the  commu¬ 
nity  and  demanded  by  a  religious.  But  if  there  are  grave  and 
well  founded  reasons  for  stopping  this  ministry  the  superioress 

50  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Aug.  17,  1801,  in  Malacitana,  ad  2;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F. 

(1907),  n.  1763;  Choupin,  L’Etat  Beligieux,  p.  226;  Mothon,  op. 
cit.,  p.  24. 

51  Blat,  II  pars  II,  n.  584. 

52  Augustine,  III,  n.  584. 

53  Augustine,  III,  p.  161,  163. 


172 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


should  submit  them  to  the  Ordinary  and  abide  by  his  deci¬ 
sion.54  By  this  canon  the  legislator  has  very  prudently  pro¬ 
vided  for  the  timidity  of  women,  especially  in  regard  to  mat¬ 
ters  of  conscience.55 

Punishment  for  Violations  by  Superioresses. 

The  origin  of  these  prohibitions  is  found  in  the  decree 
“  Quemadmodum” 56  of  Leo  XIII,  but  it  was  not  until  the 
decree  “Cum  de  Sacramentalibus”  57  of  the  Congregation  of 
Religious  that  sanctions  were  added  for  their  violation.  These 
sanctions,  however,  referred  only  to  the  refusal  of  the  supple¬ 
mentary  confessor.  The  Code  goes  further  and  extends  them  in 
its  last  canon  to  violations  of  the  prescriptions  in  regard  to 
the  confessor  for  the  peace  of  conscience  (Canon  522)  and  of 
the  sick  (Canon  523). 

CANON  2414. 

Antistita  quae  contra  praescriptum  can.  521,  §  3, 
522,  523  se  gesserit,  a  loci  Ordinario  moneatur;  si  iterum 
deJiquerit,  ab  eodem  officii  privatione  puniatur,  illico 
tamen  certiore  facta  Sacra  Congregatione  de  Religiosis. 

For  the  first  offense  the  local  Ordinary  should  give  a 
canonical  warning,  either  personally  or  through  another,  ad¬ 
visably  the  chancery.58  This  need  not  be  given  publicly,  and 
in  fact,  it  is  preferable  that  it  be  given  secretly.  Even  in  this 
case  the  fact  of  the  first  warning  should  be  evident  from  some 
document,  which  is  to  be  kept  in  the  secret  archives  of  the 
Curia.59  Since  this  warning  must  be  given  by  the  “local  Ordi¬ 
nary,”  there  is  to  be  noticed  the  change  over  the  decree  “Cum 
de  Sacramentalibus, ’ 1  which  had  the  words  “proper  ordinary.” 

54  g.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Aug.  5,  1904;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (1907),  n.  2204;  cf. 

Mothon,  Traite  de  la  Confession  Sacramentelle,  p.  24;  Battandier, 

Guide  Canonique,  n.  259. 

55  Blat,  II  pars  II,  n.  584. 

56  g.  c.  EE  et  RR,  Dee.  17,  1890,  ad  4;  cf.  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (1907), 

n.  1745. 

57  S.  C.  De  Rel.,  Feb.  3,  1913;  n.  9;  AAS  V,  63. 

58  Can.  2307. 

59  Can.  2309,  $  5. 


Supplementary  Confessors 


173 


This  term  included,  at  that  time,  exempt  regular  superiors,  as 
Ordinaries  of  the  nuns  subject  to  them.60 

For  the  second  offense  the  law  of  the  decree  “Cum  de 
Sacramentalibus”  required  the  deposition  of  the  superioress  by 
the  Ordinary  only  after  the  matter  had  been  referred  to  the 
Congregation  of  Religious.61  The  Code  reverses  the  process 
commanding  the  deposition  of  superioresses  violating  the  pre¬ 
scriptions  of  these  canons  with  the  subsequent  notification  of  the 
same  congregation.  There  is  the  obligation  of  making  this  noti¬ 
fication  immediately.  This  is  due,  no  doubt,  to  the  fact  that 
the  Code  makes  no  distinction  here  between  superioresses.62 

It  is  evident  that  if  it  is  a  question  of  a  General  or  a 
Provincial  Superioress,  an  institute  or  province  may  find 
itself  seriously  embarrassed.  This  it  should  attempt  to  remedy 
without  delay.63  The  canon  requires  for  the  deposition  of  the 
superioress  that  she  be  twice  guilty  of  violation  of  this  law. 
But  the  complaints  on  the  two  occasions  need  not  be  made  by 
the  same  religious.  The  Ordinary  should  send  to  the  Congre¬ 
gation  of  Religious  the  statement  of  the  facts  of  the  case.  This 
would  include  the  first  warning,  which  was  disregarded ;  the 
two  complaints ;  the  results  of  the  two  inquiries  as  to  the  abuses 
and  should  then  conform  himself  to  any  subsequent  decision  of 
the  congregation.64  Suspicion65  suffices  to  give  the  canonical 
warning.  Prudence,  however,  demands  that  the  Ordinary  make 
serious  inquiry  by  questioning  both  the  complainant  and  the 
superioress  before  he  gives  such  a  warning.66 

It  is  certain  that  if  the  Ordinaries  will  show  themselves 
severe  on  the  points  indicated  in  these  canons,  the  abuses  which 
may  have  continued  until  the  Code  will]  cease.67 

60  s.  c.  De  Eel.,  Feb.  3,  1913,  n.  9;  AAS  V,  63. 

61  ibid.  n.  11. 

62  Hizette,  Confessions  des  Beligieuses  (Supplement,  1920),  p.  15;  Bastien, 

op.  cit.,  n.  359. 

63  Bastien,  ibid. 

64  Hizette,  op.  cist.  (1914),  p.  61. 

65  Can.  2307. 

63  Hizette,  op.  cit.,  p.  60. 

67  Bastien,  op.  cit.,  n.  359. 


CHAPTER  XVI. 


SPECIAL  ORDINARY  CONFESSOR  OF  AN  INDIVIDUAL 

RELIGIOUS. 

CANON  520. 

§  2.  Si  qua  religiosa,  ad  animi  sui  quietem,  et  ad 
maiorem  in  via  Dei  progressum,  aliquem  specialem  con- 
fessarium  vel  moderatorem  spiri.tualem  postulet,  eum 
facile  Ordinarius  concedat;  qui  tamen  invigilet  ne  ex  hac 
concessione  abusus  irrepant;  quod  si  irrepserint,  eos  caute 
et  prudenter  eliminet,  salva  conscientiae  libertate. 

The  Subject  of  the  Law. 

This  canon  applies  to  all  women  religious  without  distinc¬ 
tion,  whether  of  solemn  or  simple  vows,  whether  of  diocesan  or 
pontifical  right.  It  also  includes  novices,  although  they  are 
not  religious  properly  so-called,  because,  in  virtue  of  Canon  566, 
§  1,  they  are  to  have  the  same  discipline  in  regard  to  confessors 
and  confession  as  religious.  For  like  reasons  members  of  so¬ 
cieties  of  women  living  in  community  even  without  vows,  come 
under  this  canon,  according  to  Canon  675.1 

The  Use  of  This  Canon. 

Necessity  of  conscience  is  not  required  that  the  religious 
might  ask  for  such  a  confessor  or  that  the  Ordinary  can  grant 
him,2  but  only  peace  of  soul  or  greater  progress  in  the  spiritual 
life,  the  way  of  God.  The  motives  for  which  a  religious  can 
request  such  a  confessor  should  be  taken  in  a  wide  sense.3  These 

1  Cf.  Treatment  on  Can.  522,  p. 

2  Blat,  II,  pars  II,  n.  583. 

8  Choupin,  L’Etat  Eeligieux,  p.  223;  Brandys,  Eechtsbuch,  n.  145; 
Shafer,  Ordensrecht,  p.  112;  Leitner,  Eandbuch  ( Dritte  Lieferung, 
Das  Ordensrecht),  p.  354. 


[174] 


Special  Confessor  of  an  Individual  Religious  175 

can  be  motives  of  conscience,  e.  g.,  trouble  because  of  a  doubt¬ 
ful  confession  or  motives  of  spiritual  advancement.4 

In  the  latter  class  can  be  included  the  lack  of  confidence  in, 
or  the  repugnance  to,  the  ordinary  confessor ;  the  difficulty  of 
revealing  their  sins  or  faults  to  him ;  the  impossibility  of  obtain¬ 
ing  frequent  and  necessary  counsels  from  him;  a  special  situa¬ 
tion  or  condition  such  as  scruples  or  temptations,  which  are 
grave  or  frequent;  extraordinary  graces  to  be  received  by  con¬ 
fessing  to  the  special  confessor.  These  causes  would  all  justify 
the  demand  for  and  the  grant  of  a  special  confessor,  since  these 
things  are  all  obstacles  which  hinder  spiritual  progress.5 

A  religious  can  request  such  a  confessor,  even  though  she 
does  not  confess  to  him,6  for  he  may  be  called  only  for  the 
purpose  of  spiritual  direction.  It  is  to  be  remembered,  how¬ 
ever,  that  the  Ordinary  cannot  offer  such  a  confessor,  for  the 
Code  requires  that  the  religious  first  request  him. 

The  Special  Confessor. 

He  can  be  either  a  secular  or  a  religious  priest  and  it  is 
not  necessary  that  he  be  presented  by  the  religious  superior 
if  it  is  a  question  of  religious  subject  to  regulars.7 

This  confessor  could  also  be  the  extraordinary  or  the  sup¬ 
plementary  confessor  of  the  community  (Canon  521,  §  §  1,  2). 8 

The  rule  before  the  Code  was  that  the  ordinary  confessor 
of  a  community  could  not  become  the  special  confessor  of  an 
individual  religious  until  after  a  lapse  of  a  year  from  the  com¬ 
pletion  of  his  three-year  term.  Even  then,  this  was  permitted 
only  for  the  cases  mentioned  in  the  constitution  “Pastoralis 
Curae”  of  Benedict  XIV.9  These  cases  were  (1)  in  grave  sick¬ 
ness;  (2)  repugnance  to  the  ordinary  confessor  and  refusal  to 
confess  to  him;  (3)  confessor  requested  for  peace  of  conscience 

4  Battandier,  Guide  Canonique,  n.  259. 

6  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  223. 

«  Blat,  II,  pars  II,  n.  583;  Shafer,  Ordensrecht,  p.  112,  note  5. 

7  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.,  I,  n.  593;  Shafer,  ]oc.  cit. 

8  Mothon,  L’Etat  Eeligieux,  n.  174;  Battandier,  op.  cit.  n.  259;  Shafer, 

op.  cit.  p.  112  ff. 

9  $$  5,  7;  FJC,  n.  388;  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Majarien  et  Civitatis  Plebis, 

Dec.  7,  1906,  ad  3;  Vermeersch,  Per.  HI,  n.  172. 


176 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


and  greater  progress  in  the  spiritual  life.  This  restriction  no 
longer  exists  under  the  Code,  for  the  Congregation  for  Reli¬ 
gious10  extended  it  to  include  all  cases  where  there  were  suffi¬ 
cient  reasons.  Sufficient  reason  would  be  that  religious  women 
might  thereby  have  the  “copia  conf essarii,  ’  ’  which  is  proper 
and  conducive  to  their  liberty  of  conscience.  This  end  is  per¬ 
fectly  obtained  if  the  ordinary  confessor  at  the  end  of  his 
three-year  term  is  retained  as  the  special  confessor  of  a  parti¬ 
cular  religious.* 11  This  confessor  is  not  bound  by  the  law  of 
the  three-year  term  and  his  office  perdures  as  long  as  the 
necessity  or  utility  for  which  he  was  given,  lasts.12  The  re¬ 
sponses  upon  which  this  deduction  is  based,  were  given  before 
the  Code,  but  they  are  declarative  rather  than  extensive  of  the 
law  and  it  seems  that  they  can  be  lawfully  followed  and  applied 
at  the  present.13  The  religious  can  make  use  of  his  ministra¬ 
tions  habitually  or  occasionally  and  if  she  is  given  a  special 
confessor,  she  no  longer  has  to  confess  to  the  ordinary  con¬ 
fessor  of  the  community.14 

The  special  confessor  need  not  be  of  the  canonical  age  of 
forty  years,15  which  is  required  by  the  Code  only  for  the  ordi¬ 
nary  and  extraordinary  confessors  of  a  community. 

Obligation  of  the  Ordinary. 

If  a  religious  should  request  one  of  these  confessors,  the 
Ordinary  should  be  very  willing  to  grant  him.  The  sovereign 
Pontiffs  have  more  than  once  insisted  upon  the  facility  with 
which  the  Ordinary  should  accede  to  this  demand,  when  it  is 


10  S.  C.  De  Religiosis,  Apr.  20-22,  1917;  AAS  IX,  276.  ad  II. 

11  Vcrmeersch,  Per.  VIII,  p.  230. 

12  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Dec.  7,  1906,  ad  5;  Vcrmeersch,  Per.  Ill,  n.  172. 

13  Fanfani,  De  Jure  Beligiosorum  (ed.  1925),  n.  137;  Vermeersch- 

Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  593;  Blat,  II  pars  II,  n.  583;  Bastien,  Directoire 
Canonique,  n.  356;  Mothon,  Etat  Beligieux,  n.  174;  Priimmer, 
Manuale  Juris  Canonici,  n.  190;  Cocchi,  II  pars  II,  n.  39  (b) ; 
Chelodi,  Jus  De  Personis,  n.  257  (a). 

14  Aertnys-Damen,  Theol.  Mor.  II,  n.  372;  Mothon,  Traite  de  la  Con¬ 

fession  Sacramentelle  (1913),  p.  28;  also  Etat  Beligieux  (1922), 
n.  174;  Choupin,  Becents  Decrets  du  St.  Siege  (1913),  p.  48. 

15  Can.  524,  §1;  Cocchi,  loc.  cit .;  Bastien,  loc.  cit.;  Vermeersch-Creusen, 

Epit.,  I,  n.  593. 


Special  Confessor  of  an  Individual  Religious  177 

justified.16  The  Ordinary  here  referred  to  is  the  Ordinary  of 
the  place  in  which  the  confessions  are  to  be  heard,  for  he  alone 
can  grant  jurisdiction  for  the  confessions  of  religious  women.17 
Thus  the  Code  differs  from  the  decree  “Cum  de  Sacramental!* 
bus.”  This  decree  used  the  words  “proprio  Ordinario, ”1S 
which  were  less  definite  than  the  words  of  the  Code.  He  is  to 
be  freely  appointed19  by  the  Ordinary.  It  is  not  necessary  that 
the  consent  of  the  superiors  be  had,  for  the  special  ordinary  con¬ 
fessor  for  those  religious  women  subject  to  them,  nor  that  they 
present  the  confessor.  These  superiors,  on  the  other  hand,  can 
demand  that  they  be  informed  of  his  appointment.  Moreover, 
if  they  judge  it  opportune  they  may  submit  their  observations 
upon  the  subject  to  the  Ordinary.20 

Abuses — can  arise  from  this  concession  on  two  scores : 

I —  From  the  religious — such  as  a  too  frequent  recourse  to 
such  a  confessor  or  at  a  time  that  is  ill-chosen  for  the  confessor 
or  the  penitent;  also  if  the  confidence  of  the  religious  in  the 
confessor  of  her  choice  is  the  result,  not  of  the  desire  of  greater 
progress  in  the  spiritual  life  and  religious  perfection,  but  of 
too  frequent  resorts  to  him  from  human  affection,  which  is 
sensible  and  may  become  carnal.21 

II —  From  others — lest  the  demands  for  such  a  confessor 
multiply  without  measure.22  It  would  be  such  an  abuse  if  all 
and  every  sister  were  to  ask  for  a  special  confessor.  As  a  result 
the  law  of  one  confessor  for  a  community  prescribed  by  the 
Church,  would  be  practically  abrogated  for  this  particular  com¬ 
munity.23 

16  Creusen,  op.  cit.,  n.  93. 

17  Can.  876. 

18  S.  C.  De  Relig.  Feb.  3,  1913,  n.  5;  AAS  V,  62. 

U)  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.,  I,  n.  593. 

2)  Creusen,  Eeligieux  et  Religieuses,  n.  93. 

21  Hizette,  Confessions  des  Eeligieuses,  p.  40  if. 

22  Creusen,  op.  cit.,  n.  93;  in  a  house  of  12  religious  there  were  counted 

13  confessors,  since  one  sister  wanted  two  confessors  to  direct  hor 
conscience. 

23  Mothon,  Etat  Eeligieux,  n.  174;  Hizette,  loc.  cit. 


178 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


Evidently,  the  local  Ordinary  should  be  very  prudent  in 
granting  an  exception,  which  can  degenerate  into  an  abuse  or 
become  manifold  because  of  the  fact  of  one  concession.24 

The  office  of  watching,  lest  such  abuses  should  creep  in, 
rests  primarily  on  the  bishop,  at  least  in  the  external  forum. 
In  the  internal  forum,  however,  the  special  confessor  should  take 
care  of  this  matter.  He  should  prudently  dismiss  the  religious 
who  has  requested  him  without  a  just  cause.25  This  concession 
should  not  be  taken  away  immediately  when  abuses  arise,  but 
every  effort  should  be  made  to  remove  them  in  some  manner.26  If 
this  should  fail,  they  should  be  eradicated  with  kindness,  but 
at  the  same  time  firmly,  cautiously  and  prudently.27  In  doubt 
as  to  the  abuse,  the  liberty  of  conscience  prevails.28 

It  is  the  bishop  who,  in  all  cases,  is  to  judge  about  these 
things.  The  religious  superioress,  when  asked  by  a  religious 
for  such  a  confessor,  should  not  show  opposition,  even  though 
she  feels  that  the  recourse  is  not  justified.  If  the  superioress 
believes  that  there  is  a  notable  abuse,  she  can,  if  it  seems  oppor¬ 
tune,  send  her  observations  on  the  matter  to  the  bishop  when 
she  notifies  him  of  the  request  of  the  religious.29 

24  Bastien,  op.  cit.,  n.  356. 

25  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Feb.  1,  1892,  ad  2  cf.  Vermeersch,  De  Eel.  II,  n.  231; 

S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Aug.  5,  1904,  ad  3  cf.  Vermeersch,  Per.  II,  n.  29; 
S.  C.  De  Rel.,  Feb.  3,  1913,  n.  13,  AAS  V,  64;  Chelodi,  Jus  de  Per- 
sonis,  n.  257. 

26  Papi,  Eeligious  in  Church  Law,  p.  53;  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit,  I,  n. 

593. 

27  Augustine,  III,  p.  159. 

28  Chelodi,  loc.  cit.;  Augustine,  loc.  cit. 

29  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Aug.  17,  1891,  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (1907)  n.  1763;  Aug. 

5,  1904,  ibid.  n.  2204.  cf.  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  224. 


CHAPTER  XVII. 


THE  CONFESSOR  FOR  PEACE  OF  CONSCIENCE. 

The  concession  to  confess  to  priests,  not  approved  for  nuns, 
was  given  for  the  first  time  by  the  Congregation  of  Bishops  and 
Regulars  on  August  27,  1852, 1  to  nuns  who  were  outside  of  their 
convent  in  habit  for  a  short  time  for  their  health  or  any  other 
reason.  They  were  permitted  to  go  to  any  priest  approved  by 
the  Ordinary  for  both  sexes,  although  not  for  nuns.  The  re¬ 
strictions  in  regard  to  the  retention  of  the  habit,  the  reason  for 
being  outside  and  the  length  of  their  stay  outside,  were  removed 
in  the  permission  of  the  same  congregation  to  school  sisters. 
Those  sisters  who,  in  community  outside  of  the  cloister,  received 
the  sacraments  and  assisted  at  Mass,  etc.,  in  the  parish  church, 
could  confess  outside  of  their  house  to  any  confessor  approved 
by  the  Ordinary.2  Therefore,  the  congregation  in  particular  in¬ 
stances  forbade  the  inclusion  in  the  constitutions  of  any  clause 
prohibiting  the  use  of  this  faculty  by  a  sister.3 

Approbation  for  nuns  ’  confession  was  no  longer  required  in 
practice  from  the  viewpoint  of  the  general  law.4  The  Sacred 
Penitentiary,  Feb.  7,  1901, 5  stated  that  absolutions  given  to 
religious  not  having  permission  to  go  out  to  confess,  were  valid. 
Moreover,  there  was  no  obligation  upon  the  confessor  to  inquire, 
whether  she  had  permission,  unless  he  had  a  prudent  suspicion 


1  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Bizzarri,  p.  129;  Vermeerscli,  Be  Beligiosis  II,  n.  227; 

Ballerini,  Opus  Theologicum  Morale,  V,  n.  409,  (ed.  1900) ;  Geni- 
cot,  Theol.  Mor.  II,  n.  340. 

2  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Atrabaten,  Apr.  22,  1872,  ad  3;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F., 

(1893)  n.  433;  Aertnys,  Theol.  Mor.  (1906)  II,  n.  236;  Marc,  In- 

stitutiones  Morales  Alphonsiae  (1885)  II,  n.  1765. 

3  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  to  Sisters  of  Third  Order  of  St.  Francis,  Angers  Feb. 

22,  1875,  ad  11;  cf.  Vermeersch,  Per.  V,  p.  (8);  quoted  by  Bat- 

tan  dier,  Guide  Canonique  (1923),  n.  260. 

4  Battandier,  loc.  cit. 

5  S.  Poenitentiariaa,  Tornaoen  et  Mechlinien. ;  Vermeersch,  De  Pel.  II, 

n.  223. 


[179] 


180 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


that  she  confessed  to  him  illicitly.  The  “Normae”  of  1901G 
granted  to  religious  the  rigid;  of  confession  in  public  churches 
to  any  priest,  approved  by  the  Ordinary.  The  Congregation  for 
Religious6 7  in  1913  gave  nuns  and  sisters,  outside  of  their  con¬ 
vent  for  any  reason,  the  right  to  use  this  faculty  not  only  in 
churches  but  even  in  oratories,  including  those  which  were  only 
semi-public.  The  congregation  added  for  the  superioresses  the 
prohibition  to  inquire  even  indirectly  in  regard  to  the  use  of 
this  faculty.  The  religious  were,  moreover,  in  no  way  bound 
to  report  to  the  superioress,  when  they  confessed  in  virtue  of 
this  decree.  The  Code  has  reproduced  the  law  of  1913  in  the 
following  canon,  but  with  some  further  mitigations. 

CANON  522. 

Si,  non  obstante  praescripto  can.  520,  521,  aliqua  re- 
ligiosa,  ad  suae  conscientiae  tranquilitatem,  confes- 
sarium  adeat  ab  Ordinario  loci  pro  mulieribus  appro- 
batum,  confessio  in  qualibet  ecclesia  vel  oratorio  etiam 
semi-publico  peracta,  valida  et  licita  est,  revocato  quoli- 
bet  contrario  privilegio;  neque  Antistita  id  prohibere  po¬ 
test  aut  de  ea  re  inquirer©,  ne  indirecte  quidem;  et  relig- 
iosae  nihil  Antistitae  referre  tenentur. 

Article  I. 

The  Subject  of  This  Law. 

The  legislator  in  the  word  “religiosa, ”  which  is  a  generic 
term,  includes  in  this  privilege  all  religious  women  without 
distinction,  whether  of  solemn  or  simple  vows,  whether  of  dio¬ 
cesan  or  pontifical  right.8  Under  the  old  law  this  concession 
was  granted  in  the  beginning  to  nuns  only,9  but  later  extended 

6  June  28,  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  June  28,  1901.  att.  149. 

7  Deer.  “Cum  de  Sacramentalibus,’  ’  Feb.  3,  1913,  n.  14;  AAS  V,  64. 

8  Can.  488,  7° — ,  which  defines  terms  applied  to  religious,  uses  this  word 

in  reference  to  both  nuns  and  sisters;  cf,  Goyeneche,  CpR  (1921), 

II,  p.  14. 

9  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Aug.  27,  1852;  Bizzarri,  p.  129;  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Apr. 

22,  1872,  ad  3;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.,  (1893),  n.  433. 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience 


181 


to  sisters  by  the  decree  “Cum  de  Sacramentalibus.”10  The  Code 

must  be  interpreted  in  the  same  way.* 11 

Nuns  observing  papal  cloister,  certainly  have  the  right  to 
use  this  canon,  but  due  to  the  restrictions  of  the  cloister,  will 
not  be  able  to  use  it  as  frequently  as  sisters.12  Novices,  although 
not  religious  properly  so-called,  for  they  have  no  vows,13  can 
also  use  this  canon.  By  the  prescription  of  Canon  566,  §  1, 
novices  are  to  follow  the  same  discipline  as  religious  in  regard 
to  confession  and  confessors.  This  is  a  change  from  the  “Cum 
de  Sacramentalibus,”  in  which  the  novices  were  not  included, 
since  it  was  considered  more  favorable  to  them  to  regard  them 
as  secular  persons,  for  whose  confessions  common  approbation 
and  jurisdiction  sufficed.14  For  similar  reasons,  according  to 
Canon  675,  members  of  pious  societies  of  women  living  in  com¬ 
munity,  even  if  without  vows,  enjoy  this  right.15  Canon  522  then 
extends  to  all  women  leading  a  religious  life  in  community. 
This  is  the  unanimous  opinion  of  recent  commentators.16  There 
is  no  need  of  extending  this  to  postulants,  since  they  can  confess 
to  any  priest,  approved  for  the  faithful. 

Article  II. 

Necessary  Conditions  for  the  Use  of  This  Canon. 

This  canon  is  burdened  with  many  difficulties  and  has  been 
the  subject  of  more  written  articles  than  any  canon  in  the 
Code.17  The  wording  of  the  canon  often  seems  equivocal  with 
the  resultant  difficulty  of  determining  just  what  conditions  are 
necessary  for  validity  and  liceity. 

10  loc.  cit. 

11  Can.  6,  4°. 

12  Can.  601,  604,  607.  ' 

13  Can.  488,  7°. 

14  Lehmkuhl,  Theol.  Mor.  (1914),  II,  n.  5118. 

15  Blat,  II,  pars  II,  n.  585  (1921). 

10  Goyeneche,  CpR,  (1921)  II,  p.  14;  Blat,  II  pars  II,  n.  585;  Ver- 
meersch,  Per.  IX,  p.  (13);  II  Monitore  I,  series  IV,  (1919)  p.  158; 
Arregui,  Summarium  Theol.  Mor.  (1919),  n.  605;  2°;  Priimmer, 
Manuale,  J.  C.,  (ed.  altera)  p.  297,  note,  5;  Leitner,  Handbuch, 
( Dritte  Lieferung),  Das  Ordensrecht,  (1919)  p.  336;  Augustine,  III, 
p.  163;  Chelodi,  Jus  de  Personis,  n.  258;  Noldin,  De  Sacramentis, 
n.  349;  and  others. 

17  cf.  Chelodi,  Jus  de  Personis,  n.  258. 


182 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


Even  the!  affirmation  that  all  these  conditions  are  necessary 
for  validity  seems  to  be  supported  by  certain  reasons. 
1. — The  law  makes  no  distinction  between  them  and  neither 
should  we.18  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  inter¬ 
pretation  of  law  is  the  declaration  of  the  genuine  sense  of  the 
law,  according  to  the  mind  and  will  of  the  legislator.19  The 
historical  survey  of  the  question  has  shown  that  the  tendency 
of  the  legislator  has  always  been  towards  further  liberty  of 
conscience  for  religious  women  in  confessional  matters.  More¬ 
over,  the  fact  that  the  wording  of  the  canon  is  not  clear  in 
places  gives  to  authors  the  right  of  advancing  views  on  these 
points.  Therefore,  any  opinions  founded  on  good  reasons,  tend¬ 
ing  toward  leniency,  are  consistent  with  the  doctrine  and  prac¬ 
tice  of  the  Church  in  this  matter.  Otherwise  confession  might 
become  odious  to  religious,  a:  calamity  which  the  Church  wishes 
to  avert.20 

2. — Some  authors  think  that  Canon  522  is  an  exception 
to  the  general  law  of  Canon  876  which  requires  that  all  con¬ 
fessors  of  religious  women  and  their  novices  have  special  juris¬ 
diction.  But  according  to  Canon  19,  laws  containing  an  ex¬ 
ception  to  the  general  law  must  be  subjected  in  all  their  clauses 
to  a  strict  interpretation.  Therefore  a  confession  to  a  simple 
confessor  in  virtue  of  Canon  522  is  subject  to  four  conditions 
and  if  one  of  them  is  missing  there  is  a  case  outside  of  the  con¬ 
cession,  outside  of  which  the  confessor  can  not,  due  to  a  defect 
of  this  peculiar  jurisdiction  required  by  common  law,  absolve  a 
religious.21  This  interpretation  does  not  seem  to  be  justified 
since  Canon  876  explicitly  mentions  Canon  522  not  as  an  excep¬ 
tion,  but  as  a  prescription  of  law  (“Salvo  praescripto  Can.  239, 

§  1,  n.  1,  522,  523.”)  On  the  contrary  it  would  be  better  to  say 
that  Canon  876  is  not  a  general  law  and  also  that  Canon  522 
can  not  become  an  exception  to  it,  since  it  is  explicitly  mentioned 

18  Ubi  lex  non  distinguit,  nee  nos  distinguere  debemus;  cf.  Wernz,  Jus 
Decretalium,  (1913),  n.  131. 

18  Maroto,  Institutiones  J.  C.,  I,  n.  235. 

20  Odia  restringi,  ct  favores  convenit  ampliari;  R.  ,T.  in  VI0,  Reg.  15. 

21  Goyeneche,  CpR,  II,  p.  16. 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience 


183 


and  confirmed  by  Canon  876.  Moreover  in  Canon  522  it  is  not 
a  question  of  a  later  law  derogating  a  former  one,  but  only  of 
a  definite  article  of  one  law  or  legal  rule  for  the  confessions  of 
religious  women.  Otherwise  Can.  239,  §  1,  which  treats  of  a 
privilege  of  Cardinals  and  Canon  523,  which  grants  the  choice 
of  a  confessor  to  sick  religious  women,  should  also  be  strictly  in¬ 
terpreted  since  they  too  are  enumerated  in  Canon  876.  This 
interpretation  of  Canon  876  can  not  be  said  to  make  it  a  “res 
odiosa”  on  the  ground  that  the  prudence  of  those  who  are 
destined  for  the  confessions  of  female  religious  is  guaranteed  by 
this  special  approbation.  Rather  should  Canon  520,  which  takes 
away  the  ordinary  choice  of  a  confessor  granted  to  the  faithful 
in  Canon  905  and  assigns  only  one  ordinary  confessor  to  houses 
of  religious  women,  be  considered  as  the  ‘  ‘  res  odiosa.  ’ 9  22 

I.  The  Motive . 

The  confession  must  be  made  for  the  peace  of  conscience  of 
the  religious.  This  requirement  was  not  contained  in  the  decree, 
“Cum  de  Sacramentalibus. ’ 9  Although  the  Code  permits  reli¬ 
gious  women  to  confess  within  their  own  oratory  to  confessors 
not  approved  for  religious,  at  the  same  time  to  safeguard  the 
rule  of  regular  confessions  to  the  ordinary  confessor  appointed 
for  that  purpose,  it  requires  that  these  confessions  be  made  for 
peace  of  conscience.  Nevertheless  the  very  evolution  of  the  law, 
which,  as  shown  above,  was  always  towards  leniency,  demands 
that  these  words:  “Ad  suae  conscientiae  tranquilitatem”  must 
be  taken  in  a  broad  sense.23  This  motive  of  peace  of  conscience 
may  be  defined  then  as  any  cause,  which  is  at  least  subjectively 
serious,  tending  to  procure  for  the  religious  a  greater  interior 
tranquillity.24  In  other  words  the  religious  are  to  confess  with 
the  sincere  desire  of  purifying  their  conscience  or  relieving  it 
to  advantage. 


22  Vermeersch,  Per.,  XI,  p.  (14) :  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  (1921)  I, 

n.  59,  n.  498. 

23  Creusen,  Eeligieux  et  Eeligieuses,  n.  95. 

24  Bastien,  Directoire  Canonique,  n.  360. 


184 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


A. — This  motive  is  not  necessary  for  validity.  Most  authori¬ 
ties  now  agree  upon  this  although  there  was  an  opinion  that 
the  “peace  of  conscience”  is  a  “conditio  sine  qua  non.”  Ap¬ 
peal  was  made  to  a  comparison  of  phrasing,  e.  g.,  Article  VII 
of  the  decree  “Ne  Temere”25  contains  the  words  “ad  consulen- 
dum  conscientiae,  ”  accepted  by  authors  as  a  condition  imposed 
under  penalty  of  invalidity.26  Augustine  takes  issue  with  this 
opinion  proving  that  this  could  not  be  a  “conditio  sine  qua 
non”  and  is  at  the  most  a  motive  cause,  which  does  not  affect 
the  validity  of  the  confession.27 

I.  If  the  phrase  “ad  suae  conscientiae  tranquilitatem ”  were 
changed  into  a  dependent  clause  it  would  read  “ut  consulatur 
conscientiae  tranquilitati.  ”  Here  the  motive  is  expressed  by 
the  ut  finalis.  Even  if  it  be  taken  as  the  causa  finalis  and  not 
merely  an  impulsive  cause  it  can  not  be  construed  as  a  “con¬ 
ditio  sine  qua  non”  for  the  purpose  or  end  of  the  law  does 
not  fall  under  the  law  (finis  legis  non  cadit  sub  lege)  unless 
expressed  in  the  law  itself.28  Neither  does  the  phrase  of  the 
“Ne  Temere”29  imply  a  “conditio  sine  qua  non.”  The  main 
point  of  the  decree  is  the  imminent  danger  of  death,  in  which 
there  is  generally  disturbance  of  mind,  and  during  which  mar¬ 
riage  could  be  contracted  before  any  priest  and  two  witnesses. 
In  these  cases  the  priest  did  not  have  to  ask  the  contracting 
parties  if  they  wished  to  appease  their  consciences  as  a  condi¬ 
tion  without  which  they  could  not  contract  marriage.  It  is  evi¬ 
dent  that  here  too  the  appeasing  of  the  conscience  is  the  im¬ 
pulsive  or  motive  cause,  the  “conditio  sine  qua  non”  being  the 
danger  of  death.  The  present  Code  (Can.  1098)  has  omitted 
this  clause. 

25  s.  c.  C.  Aug.  2,  1907;  ’ ASS,  XL,  591  ff. 

26  Kinane,  Ir.  Ecc.  Bee.,  (1919)  vol.  XIII,  p.  239.  414;  Stettner,  Am. 

Ecc.  Bev.  (1919)  vol.  LXI,  p.  446. 

27  Augustine,  A  Commentary  on  Canon  Law,  IV,  p.  269-273;  cf.  Am.  Ecc. 

Bev.  (1920),  LXII,  p.  58. 

28  Cf.  Can.  11,  cf.  Augustine,  loc.  cit. 

29  Art.  YII — * 1  The  phrase  is  accepted  as  meaning  a  reason  for  admit¬ 

ting  the  extraordinary  form  of  contracting  marriage,  the  non-exist¬ 
ence  of  which  would  invalidate  a  marriage  informally  contracted. ; 1 

Augustine,  loc.  cit. 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience 


185 


The  preposition  ad  has  several  meanings,  but  as  a  rule  is 

only  used  to  denote  a  condition  when  a  contract  or  stipulation  is 

* 

involved,  e.  g.,  faculties  granted  ‘‘ad  beneplacitum  nostrum.” 
i.  e.,  as  long  as  it  is  the  pleasure  of  the  one  delegating.30 

II.  Incongruity  of  the  opposite  opinion.  If  this  phrase  is 
considered  as  a  condition  necessary  for  validity  then  the  reli¬ 
gious  would  administer  the  material  for  a  valid  confession,  not 
only  by  her  confession  and  dispositions  of  souls  such  as  true 
sorrow,  etc.,  but  even  by  her  “peace  of  conscience.”  That  is  con¬ 
trary  to  the  principles  of  theology.31 

III.  This  has  been  the  constant  interpretation  of  similar 
clauses  in  past  legislation.  Benedict  XIY  advised  indulgence,  by 
the  bishops  and  superiors,  to  the  desires  of  the  individual  nuns 
when  they  reasonably  seek  anything  that  confers  greater  security 
and  peace  of  conscience.32  Benedict  XIV  used  the  phrases  “pro 
animi  quiete”  and  “ad  earum  conscientiae  quietem  et  securi* 
tatem.”  The  wording  of  this  text  is  clear  and  a  strict  interpre¬ 
tation  of  it  would  be  foreign  to  the  mind  of  the  legislator.  In 
order  not  to  torture  the  nuns  in  conscience  he  gave  them  the 
right  to  call  in  another  confessor  than  the  ordinary  of  the  com¬ 
munity,  even  if  they  had  to  apply  to  the  Sacred  Penitentiary 
This  was  a  motive  cause  but  not  a  condition  properly  so-called.3* 

IV.  To  subject  the  validity  of  confession  to  a  condition 
which  is  entirely  subjective  and  about  which  the  legislator  would 
have  great  difficulty  in  judging,  would  argue  for  grave  impru¬ 
dence  upon  the  part  of  the  legislator.34  Barbosa  35  defines  con¬ 
science  as  something  hidden  in  the  soul  which  can  not  be  easily 


30  Augustine,  IV,  loc.  cit ;  Father  Augustine  discusses  this  question  very 

we]l  and  it  will  suffice  to  synopsize  his  treatment  here. 

31  Augustine,  op.  cit.,  p.  272. 

32  Benedict  XIV,  Const.  Pastoralis  Curae;  $  $  7,  8;  FJC  n.  388;  cf.  Augus¬ 

tine,  loc.  cit. 

33  Augustine,  loc.  cit. 

34  Goyeneche,  CpR,  (1921)  II,  p.  16. 

35  Tractatus  Varii,  Axiomata  52,  (ed.  London  1660)  p.  34;  Conscientia 

nihil  aliud  est  quam  sensus  animae  cognoscentis  bonum  et  malum 
et  quid  intrinsecus  latens  in  mente,  quod  probari  non  potest  directo . 


186 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


proven  in  the  external  forum.  This  could  hardly  be  made  a 
“conditio  sine  qua  non”  for  the  validity  of  confession.36 

V.  The  words  “for  the  peace  of  conscience”  if  taken  in  the 
wide  sense,  will  almost  always  be  verified  in  a  sincere  confession. 
Every  serious  confession  and  the  serious  choice  of  a  confessor  ia 
directed  in  some  way  to  putting  the  conscience  at  ease.37 

If  the  strict  interpretation  is  insisted  upon  it  will  be  im¬ 
possible  to  determine  the  limits  beyond  which  the  confession, 
which  is  made,  may  be  null. 

VI.  Stettner  38  requires  the  “peace  of  conscience,”  as  a 
distinct  motive.  But  the  result  of  that  requirement  is  to  defeat 
the  purpose  of  the  law.  It  imposes  upon  the  religious  the  pre¬ 
vious  judgment  as  to  the  gravity  of  the  reasons  for  which  she 
can  address  a  confessor  in  virtue  of  this  canon.  In  many  cases 
this  decision  wTould  trouble  consciences,  which  are  not  clear,  or 
well  formed,  or  which  are  given  to  anxiety  and  scrupulosity.39 
Therefore,  the  concession  granted  by  the  legislator  for  the  peace 
of  conscience  of  religious  women  would  lead  to  nothing  else  but 
confusion  and  anxiety.40  It  is  true  that  the  legislator  makes  laws 
for  normal  persons  and  not  the  scrupulous.  Yet  it  is  reasonable 
to  deduce  that  the  mind  of  the  legislator,  who  wishes  to  promote 
quietude  of  conscience,  is,  that  a  condition  in  regard  to  such  a 
thing  should  not  open  the  door  to  scruples  for  normal  persons.41 
It  would  also  be  very  difficult  in  individual  cases  to  judge 
whether  the  confessor  would  be  useful  for  the  peace  of  con¬ 
science  or  not.  Thus  instead  of  facilitating  approach,  the  con¬ 
sciences  of  the  religious  by  the  above  mentioned  faculty  would 
be  thrown  into  more  and  more  difficulties.42 

3v>  Augustine,  IV,  p.  271 ;  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  595. 

37  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  n.  595;  n.  588;  Fanfani,  De  Jure  Be- 

ligiosorum,  n.  127,  dubium  I;  cf.  p.  155;  Chelodi,  Jus  de  Personis , 

n.  250;  Choupin,  L’Etat  Beligieux,  p.  228;  Goyeneche,  CpR,  II,  p.  10; 

Leitner,  Handbuch  ( Dritte  Lieferung ,  Das  Ordensrecht )  p.  358; 

Stettner,  Am.  Ecc.  Bev.,  (1919)  XLI  p.  446  if. 

38  Am.  Ecc.  Bev.  ibid. 

39  Creusen,  Beligieux  et  Beligieuses,  n.  95. 

Goyeneche,  CpR,  II,  p.  17. 

41  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  588,  n.  595. 

42  Fanfani,  op.  cit.  n.  127,  dubium  1,  cf.  p.  155.  (ed.  1925) ;  n.  102,  (cd. 

1920). 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience 


187 


Therefore  the  motive  of  tranquillity  of  conscience  can  not 
be  required  for  validity  but,  at  the  most,  only  for  the  liceity  of 
the  confession  made  in  virtue  of  Can.  522.  This  interpretation 
is  held  today  by  almost  all  commentators.43 

B.  — Sufficient  Reasons  to  use  this  canon  present  themselves 
more  frequently  in  persons  of  delicate  or  anxious  consciences  and 
in  certain  passing  circumstances  and  periods  of  the  spiritual  life. 
This  is  especially  so  in  communities,  which  are  less  favored  in 
the  choice  and  quality  of  confessors.44  Such  motives  can  not 
be  given  taxatively  for  many  of  them  can  be  found.  Demon¬ 
stratively  they  would  be  as  follows:  a  doubt  of  conscience  in 
regard  to  a  sin,  a  fault,  a  temptation  or  some  obligation,45 
whether  imposed  or  freely  assumed ;  the'  ability  to  confess  more 
freely  to  another  priest  than  to  the  ordinary  confessor ;  the  in¬ 
voluntary  omission  of  confession  on  the  customary  day ;  the  de¬ 
sire  to  purify  herself  of  a  fault,  even  if  light  and  much  less 
deliberate  than  a  habit ;  the  occasion  to  confess  to  a  priest  par¬ 
ticularly  learned  or  experienced  ;46  or  the  desire  to  continue 
the  practice  of  weekly  confession,  since  such  regularity  con¬ 
tributes  to  the  interior  peace.47  These  reasons  suffice  to  make 
the  confession  licit. 

C.  Conclusion — A  religious  who  seriously  desires  to  recon¬ 
cile  herself  should  not  worry  as  to  having  made  an  invalid  con¬ 
fession.  If  the  confession  is  sincere  it  is  also  valid,48  since  such 
confessions  tend  to  appease  the  conscience.  If  there  were  no  rea¬ 
son  whatsoever,  the  confession  would  be  valid  but  unlawful.  But 
any  confessor  is  certainly  justified  in  arousing  in  the  religious 
the  proper  dispositions.  Therefore  he  would  not  have  to  refuse 


43  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  588,  595;  Fanfani,  loc.  cit.;  Goyeneche, 

CpR,  II,  p.  17;  Creusen,  op.  cit.,  n.  95;  Augustine,  IV,  p.  269  ff; 
Chelodi,  Jus  de  Personis,  n.  256;  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  228;  Leitner, 
op.  cit.,  p.  358;  Cocchi,  op.  cit.,  II,  pars  II,  n.  42;  Bastien,  op.  cit., 
n.  360;  Papi,  Religious  in  Church  Law,  p.  55;  Aertnys,  Theol.  Mor. 
Ill,  $  378;  Mahoney,  Am.  Ecc.  Rev.  LXXIY  (1926),  p.  43;  Grosam, 
Linzer  Quartalschrift  (1923),  LXXVI,  p.  111. 

44  Creusen,  op.  cit.,  n.  95. 

45  Cocchi,  op.  cit.,  n.  41. 

46  Ycrmccrsch,  Summa,  n.  189;  Creusen.  loc.  cit. 

47  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  227. 

48  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  588,  595  (1923) ;  Choupin,  loc.  cit. 


188 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


to  hear  that  particular  confession,  hut  should  tell  her  to  go  to 
the  ordinary  confessor  49  in  the  future. 

A  confessor  in  a  public  church  hearing  the  confessions  of 
all  who  come  to  him  may  observe  the  regularity  of  a  penitent 
and  know  his  or  her  profession.  He  has  no  right,  however,  to 
interfere  with  their  liberty  unless  they  are  guilty  of  an  abuse 
on  other  grounds.50  It  is  the  religious  and  not  the  confessor 
who  is  to  judge  as  to  the  quieting  of  her  conscience 51  and 
therefore  there  is  no  obligation  on  the  confessor  of  inquiring 
as  to  her  motive.52 

The  confessor  must,  however,  be  guided  by  the  rules  of 
prudence.  He  could  not  by  the  request  of  a  religious  assume 
the  permanent  direction  of  her  conscience  unless  he  receives 
special  faculties  from  the  Ordinary,  as  her  special  ordinary 
confessor.  The  religious  herself  would,  of  course,  have  to  re¬ 
quest  this.  Ip  that  case  he  would  go  to  hear  her  confession  in 
the  convent.  Unless  there  is  a  manifest  misuse  of  this  canon  the 
confessor  in  the  public  church  can  in  all  other  circumstances  dis¬ 
regard  the  frequency  of  the  penitent’s  approach  to  the  holy 
tribunal.  This  seems  to  be  the  spirit  as  well  as  the  letter  of  the 
law  and  protects  both  the  penitent  and  the  confessor.53 

II.  The  Approach. 

The  words  “si  adeat  confessarium,”  which  were  not  con¬ 
tained  in  the  law  of  1913,  are  therefore  an  innnovation. 

That  the  religious  approach  the  confessor  is  a  condition  nec¬ 
essary  for  the  validity  of  the  confessions  made  in  virtue  of  this 
canon. 

I. — The  general  rule  laid  down  in  Canon  876  is  that  all 
priests  who  hear  the  confessions  of  religious  women  and  their 
novices  should  have  special  jurisdiction,  “  salvo  praescripto, 
Can.  522.”  Canon  522,  however,  is  not  granted  in  favor  of 

49  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Feb.  1,  1892,  ad  2;  AAS  XXX,  121,  122;  cf.  Col. 

S.  C.  P.  F.  (ed.  1907),  n.  1781;  Yermeersch,  De  Bel.  II,  n.  231. 
r>o  Am.  Ecc.  Bev.  vol.  (1923)  LXIX,  p.  538  ff. 
si  Augustine,  Am.  Ecc.  Bev.  LXVI,  p.  417. 

52  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  229. 

53  Am.  Ecc.  Bev.  (1923)  LXIX,  538. 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience 


189 


the  confessor  but  the  religious.  Therefore,  the  confessor  can 
hear  these  confessions  only  when  the  religious  approach  him 
for  that  purpose.54  Thus  the  initiative  must  be  taken  by  the 
religious  and  not  the  priest  and  it  must  be  a  spontaneous  and 
free  approach.55 

II.  — This  clause  “si  adeat”  since  it  restricts  the  liberty  of 
the  religious  should  be  strictly  interpreted  and  the  words  taken 
in  their  direct  and  primary  significance.  “  Adire”  has  the 
primary  meaning  “to  go  to, ”  or  when  used  in  reference  to  a 
person  “to  go  up  to,  to  approach.”  Facciolati56  defines  it 
in  these  words  ((adeo  ....  accedo  ad  aliquem  vel  aliquid  eo  .  .  . 
cum  de  persona  usurpatur,  significat  convenire,  visere  .  .  . 
eiiam  consulendi  causa  et  auxilium  ah  alio  petendi.” 57 
It  is  used  in  this  sense  in  Canon  530,  §  2,  “  Expedit  ut  ipsi  filiali 
cum  fiducia  Superiores  adeant,”  where  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  it  means  personal  approach  by  the  religious. 

III.  — This  interpretation  is  confirmed  by  the  anterior  legis¬ 
lation  which  permitted  a  religious  to  go  to  a  simple  confessor 
only  when  she  was  able  to  approach  him  outside  of  the  religious 
house.58 

TV. — If  any  priest,  not  approached  or  requested  by  the 
religious,  could  absolve  in  virtue  of  this  canon  then  Canon 
876,  §  1,  which  requires  peculiar  jurisdiction  for  all  priests  who 
hear  the  confessions  of  religious  women  and  their  novices, 
would  become  vain  and  useless.59 

Y. — The  religious  must  make  the  approach  since  the  simply 


54  Goyeneche,  CpR,  II,  p.  18;  Bastien,  op.  cit.,  n.  360;  Vermeersch,  Per. 

XI,  p.  (14). 

55  Vormeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  595. 

56  Totius  Latinitatis  Lexicon,  I,  p.  38.  (London  1826). 

57  ibid.  Secundam,  Tertiam  Editionem,  (Schneebergae,  1831) ;  cf.  An¬ 

drews,  Latin-English  Lexicon,  p.  28;  Forcellini,  Lexicon  Totius 
Latinitatis,  v.  adeo;  Burt’s  Latin-Englisli  Dictionary,  p.  3;  Cassell’s 
Latin-English  Dictionary,  p.  11;  cf.  Creusen,  op.  cit.,  n.  95. 

58  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Aug.  27,  1852;  cf.  Bizzarri,  p.  129;  Apr.  22,  1872,  ad 

3,  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (1893)  n.  433;  Normae,  June  28,  1901;  S.  Peni- 
tentiaria,  Tornacen.  et  Mechlinen.,  Feb.  1,  1901,  cf.  Vermeersch,  De 
Eel.  II,  n.  223;  S.  C.  De  Rel.  Feb.  3,  1913,  AAS  V,  64;  Goyeneche, 
CpR,  II,  p.  18. 

59  Gojmneche,  loc.  cit. 


190 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


approved  priest  is  not  numbered  among  those  confessors  who  can 
be  called  by  the  religious.60 

VI. — This  view  is  supported  by  the  majority  of  authors.61 

Conclusion. — In  order  that  the  simply  approved  confessor 
may  validly  hear  the  confessions  of  religious  in  virtue  of  Canon 
522,  the  religious  must  approach  him  for  that  purpose.  A  reli¬ 
gious  truly  approaches  the  confessor  not  only  when  she  seeks 
him  when  outside  of  her  religious  house,  e.  g.,  in  a  public 
church,  but  also  when  she  seizes  the  opportunity  of  his  pres¬ 
ence,  within  her  convent,  to  request  him  to  hear  her  confession.62 
On  the  other  hand,  since  the  initiative  must  always  be  taken 
by  the  religious,  a  simple  confessor  can  never  go  to  a  church  or 
convent  of  religious  and  offer  to  hear  their  confessions  or 
invite  them  to  confess.63  Moreover,  he  could  not,  without 
being  requested  by  a  religious,  sit  in  the  confessional  of  a 
church  or  the  domestic  chapel  of  the  religious  and  wait 
for  them  to  come  to  confession.  Otherwise  the  prescription  of 
Canon  522  would  be  useless.  In  these  cases  he  would  act  un¬ 
lawfully  and  invalidly.64 

It  is  to  be  remembered,  however,  that  the  offering  of  one¬ 
self,  is  quite  different  from  going  upon  the  request  of  the  peni¬ 
tent,  whether  made  personally  or  through  another,  to  the 
confessional  where  the  penitent  is  kneeling.65 
Questions — 

I. — Can  a  community  of  religious  make  use  of  Canon  522  f 
A. — If  the  religious  approach  as  individuals  and  each  one 

co  Vermeersch,  Per.  IX,  p.  14. 

61  Vermeersch,  loc.  cit.;  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  595;  Goyeneche, 

CpR,  II,  p.  18;  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  De  Religiosis ,  p.  189;  Fanfani, 
De  Jure  Beligiosorum  (1920)  n.  110;  Blat,  Commentarium  in  Tex~ 
turn  C.  J.  C.,  II  pars  II,  n.  585;  Augustine,  A  Commentary  on  Canon 
Law,  IV,  p.  163;  Cocchi,  Commentarium  in  Codicem  J.  C.,  II  pars 
II,  n.  42;  Bastien,  Directoire  Canonique,  n.  360;  Ramos,  CpR,  (1922) 
p.  32;  Kinane,  Ir.  Ecc.  Bee.,  5th  Series  (1923)  vol.  22,  p.  643. 

62  Vermeersch,  Per  IX,  p.  (14);  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  loc.  cit.;  Goyen- 

eche,  loc.  cit. 

63  Goyeneche,  CpR,  II,  181;  Bastien,  op.  cit.,  n.  360;  Vermeersch-Creusen, 

Epit.  n.  595. 

64  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  op.  cit.,  p.  189. 

65  Monitore  Ecclesiatico,  (1921)  XXXIII,  p.  160. 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience  191 

enters  for  the  peace  of  her  conscience,  even  though  the  whole 
community  might  approach  in  this  manner,  he  could  hear  their 
confessions,  since  the  canon  grants  this  right  to  “aliqua  reli- 
giosa”  for  the  peace  of  her  conscience.  This  case  is  similar  to 
that  of  a  pastor  who  may,  in  virtue  of  Canon  1245,  §  1,  dis¬ 
pense  individual  subjects  from  the  law  of  fasting  and  absti¬ 
nence.  This  dispensation  may  be  granted  to  all  parishioners 
taken  individually  until  the  whole  parish  is  dispensed.66 

B.  — When  requested  by  the  superioress  to  hear  the  con¬ 
fessions  “of  some  of  the  religious,”  can  he  do  so?  He  can,  for 
the  same  reasons,  hear  their  confessions  in  a  church,  semi-public 
or  public  oratory  or  a  place  legitimately  destined  for  the  con¬ 
fessions  of  women.  The  canon  requires  an  approach,  but  that 
can  be  made  “per  se”  or  “per  alios”  and  by  asking,  through 
the  superioress,  to  go  to  confession,  the  religious  are  fulfilling 
the  prescriptions  of  Canon  522.67 

C.  — Could  he  hear  the  community  at  the  request  of  the 
superior  on  the  grounds  that  each  sister  is  “aliqua  religiosa?” 
(1)  The  canon  was  granted  for  the  peace  of  conscience  of  the 
individual,  of  which  she  alone  is  the  judge.  Nevertheless,  the 
confessor  could  hardly  assume  that  the  whole  community  wished 
to  have  its  conscience  quieted.68  (2)  The  word  “aliqua”  is 
indefinite  in  meaning  and  can  be  translated  as  “some,  someone, 
any  or  anyone”  or  the  indefinite  article  “a.”  Barbosa69  defines 
it  as  a  general  term  comprising  the  whole  species,  but  also  sup¬ 
posing  distribution  into  parts.  Although,  as  Augustine  states, 
it  refers  to  individuals,  it  does  not  comprise  the  totality  of 
persons  as  such,  but  only  the  individuals.  Again,  although  it 
is  used  in  the  singular,  it  may  comprise  many  and  therefore 
equals  the  plural.  Therefore,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  words, 
the  simply  approved  priest  cannot  hear  the  confessions  of  ‘ 1  the  ’  ’ 
community,  since  such  an  expression  signifies  the  community 

66  Augustine,  Am.  Ecc.  Rev.  vol.  (1922)  LXYI,  p.  417;  Father  Augus¬ 

tine’s  treatment  of  these  questions  is  followed  here. 

67  Augustine,  ibid;  II  Monitore  Ecclesiastico,  loc.  cit. 

68  Augustine,  loc.  cit. 

69  Tractatus  Varii,  Dictiones  Usufrequentes,  Dictio,  XXII,  p.  648  ff  (ed. 

London  1660). 


192 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


in  its  totality.  For  such  confessions  he  needs  special  juris¬ 
diction  and  the  presumption  of  this  would  not  justify  his  ac¬ 
tion.70  He  can,  however,  state  that  he  is  willing  to  hear  the 
confessions  of  those  who  wish  to  avail  themselves  of  his  pres¬ 
ence.  If  any  then  express  the  desire  to  confess,  he  can  hear 
them  licitly  and  validly.71 

If  the  sisters  should  do  this  “in  fraudem  legis,”  i.  e.,  it 
is  arranged  among  them  that  one  sister  should  request  con¬ 
fession  in  order  to  bring  the  confessor  into  the  confessional 
and  then  all  intend  to  follow  as  a  community,  the  bishop  should 
correct  this  abuse. 

II. — Can  they  ask  him  to  come  to  the  convent  to  hear  their 
confessions  ? 

Before  the  publication  of  the  decisions  of  the  Pontifical 
Commission  for  the  interpretation  of  the  Code  in  regard  to 
Canon  522,  on  November  23,  1920, 72  it  was  the  common  and 
almost  certain  opinion,  sponsored  by  Vermeersch,73  that  the 
approach  by  the  religious  to  the  simply  approved  priest,  since 
he  is  not  enumerated  among  those  who  could  go  to  the  religious, 
was  necessary  for  validity.  Otherwise  the  principle  of  Canon 
876,  §  1,  would  be  destroyed.  After  the  reply  of  the  Pontifical 
Commission  for  the  Authentic  Interpretation  of  the  Code  to  the 
following  question:  “Utrum  verba  canonis  522:  ‘ Confessio  in 
qualibet  ecclesia  vel  oratorio  etiam  semi-publico  peracta  valida 
et  licit  a  sit ’  it  a  intelligenda  sint,  ut  confessionem  extra  ea  loca 
peracta  non  tantum  illicita,  sed  etiam  invalida  sit,”  which  was 
couched  in  the  following  words:  “ Canon  522,  ita  est  intelligen- 
dum,  ut  confessiones,  quas  ad  suae  conscientiae  tranquilitatem 
religiosae  peragunt  apud  confessarium  ab  Ordinario  loci  pro 
mulieribus  approbatum,  licitae  et  validae  sint,  dummodo  fiant 
in  ecclesia  vel  oratorio  semi-publico,  aut  in  loco  ad  audiendas 
confessiones  mulierum  legitime  destinato,”  74  omits  the  words 

70  Augustine,  loc.  cit.;  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  595. 

71  Augustine,  loc.  cit. 

72  AAS  XII,  575,  ad  3. 

73  Periodica,  IX,  p.  (14) ;  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  p.  221  (ed.  1921), 

74  Com.  PP  ad  CC  Auth.  Interpret.,  Nov.  24,  1920,  de  religiosis  ad  III; 

AAS  XII,  575;  cf.  L.  Q.  S.  (1920);  LXXIV,  150. 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience  193 

of  the  canon  “si  adeat”  Vermeersch  and  Creusen  75  granted 

1  i  ‘i».  .  .  |  ••  .ij  n  •  -i  .  ••  . 


probability  to  the  opinion  that  confession  made  to  a  priest 
simply  approved  for  women,  even  when  called  for  that  pur¬ 
pose,  is  valid.  Other  authorities  appealing  to  the  admission  of 
Vermeersch  in  support  of  their  opinion  state  (1)  that  the  oppo¬ 


site  opinion  is  too  rigid;  (2)  it  does  not  conform  to  the  spirit 


of  the  law;  (3)  there  is  no  difference  or  at  least  a  negligible 
one  between  the  two  expressions  “to  summon  a  confessor”  and 
“to  seek  one;”  (4)  it  is  not  reasonable  that  the  validity  of  the 
absolution  should  depend  upon  such  a  secondary  circumstance.76 


have  any  significance  since  they  had  no  relation  to  the  ques¬ 
tion  asked,  which  was  in  regard  to  the  place  of  confession,  i.  e., 


whether  the  phrase  of  Canon  522,  “  Confessio  in  qualibet  eccle- 
sia  vel  oratorio  etiam  semi-publico  per  acta  valida  et  licita  sit” 


must  be  so  understood  that  confessions  made  outside  of  these 
places  were  not  only  illicit  but  invalid.  Since  the  question 
was  not  whether  these  confessions  were  valid,  because  made 
for  peace  of  conscience,  or  because  they  were  made  to  an  ap¬ 
proved  priest ;  or  whether  the  approach  by  the  religious  was 
necessary  for  the  validity  and  liceity ;  but  only  as  to  the  point ; 
whether  the  validity  and  liceity  of  these  confessions  depended 
upon  the  requirement  in  regard  to  the  place  in  which  they  were 
to  be  heard,  the  omission  of  the  words  “si  adeat”  in  the  reply 
of  the  Pontifical  Commission,  has  no  significance.  Moreover, 
the  words  of  this  reply  “  confessiones  quas  .  .  .  peragunt ”  show 
that  the  answer  refers  only  to  the  validity  and  liceity  of  con¬ 
fessions,  the  approach  to  which  is  presumed  as  having  been 
made  in  the  prescribed  way. 


75  Epit.  loc.  cit. 

76  Choupin,  L’Etot  Beligieux,  p.  228. 


194 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


II.  — The  supporters  of  the  opposite  opinion,  if  their  rea¬ 
soning  is  right,  do  not  go  far  enough.  According  to  the  word¬ 
ing  of  the  reply  these  confessions  in  which  the  confessor  is 
summoned,  would  not  only  be  valid  but  lawful,  and  therefore 
these  words  form  merely  a  directive  rubric  and  not  a  condition 
at  all  as  the  introductory  particle  “si”  implies.  This  clause 
then,  which  is  the  only  one  definitely  worded  as  a  condition, 
would  be  the  least  important.  This  is  deduced  from  the  fact  that 
the  reply  even  mentions  that  those  confessions  made  in  these 
places  would  be  valid  and  licit,  if  made  for  the  peace  of  con¬ 
science.  Yet  the  motive  of  peace  of  conscience,  by  the  com¬ 
mon  opinion  of  authors,  is  had  in  every  serious  confession  and 
is,  according  to  some,  only  an  impulsive  cause.  Such  an  inter¬ 
pretation,  of  the  clause  “si  adeat,”  hardly  seems  to  be  in  con¬ 
formity  to  the  prudent  mind  of  the  legislator. 

III.  — The  word  “adeat”  cannot  be  distorted  in  any  way 
so  as  to  mean  the  right  to  summon  the  confessor.  As  seen  above 
from  its  very  definition,  it  always  implies  that  its  subject,  which 
in  this  case  is  “aliqua  religiosa  ”  should  make  the  approach. 
If  summoning  was  intended  by  the  legislator  he  should  have 
used  here  the  words  of  the  following  Canon  523,  “  ar cesser e 
possunt,”  whereby  sick  religious  have  the  right  to  summon  a 
confessor. 

IV. — This  opinion  is  certainly  in  conformity  with  the  law, 
for  if  it  were  possible  to  summon  a  priest,  then  Canon  876, 
which  requires  special  jurisdiction  for  the  confessions  of  reli¬ 
gious  and  their  novices,  would  be  entirely  destroyed.  Any 
religious  could  summon  any  priest  at  practically  any  time 
she  desired  and  the  prescriptions  of  Canons  520,  521,  523  would 
be  useless.  Since  the  Code  imposes  upon  the  local  Ordinaries 
the  obligation  of  appointing  priests  whom  the  religious  can 
freely  call  (Canon  521,  §  §  2,  3)  and  grants  this  right  to  sick 
religious  (Canon  523),  it  is  evidently  the  intention,  of  the  Code 
that  they  cannot  call  others. 

Summoning  the  confessor,  then,  is  not  merely  an  evasion  of 
the  law  but  directly  against  it.  This  concession  of  Canon  522 
is  a  great  privilege  and  since  the  Holy  See  must  put  some 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience 


195 


limit  upon  it,  the  stricter  opinion  will  naturally  be  considered 
by  some  as  narrow  minded.  On  the  other  hand,  once  authori¬ 
ties  begin  to  extend  this  faculty  for  the  reasons  advanced  by 
the  first  opinion,  the  extensions  will  never  cease. 

V. — This  opinion  is  supported  by  the  following  authori¬ 
ties  :  Biederlack-Fuhrich,77  Prummer,78  Goyeneche,79  Gro- 
6am,80  and  Kinane.81 

Conclusions  for  practice. 

Once  more  the  confessor  can  resort  to  Canon  209  to  settle 
all  qualms  of  conscience  on  this  point.  Vermeersch,82  Creu- 
sen83  and  Choupin84  defend  the  milder  opinion  and  the  reasons 
offered  together  with  their  extrinsic  authority  suffice  to  create 
a  positive  and  probable  doubt  of  law.  In  these  circumstances 
the  confessor  can  follow  this  opinion  with  the  assurance  that 
the  Church  will  supply  him  with  the  necessary  jurisdiction. 

The  superioress  is  not  in  the  least  obliged  to  summon  such 
a  priest  at  the  request  of  a  religious85  and  there  is  even  an 
obligation  on  her  to  refuse.86  But  if  she  should  summon  one 
upon  request,  there  is  nothing  to  prevent  the  valid  and 
licit  confession  of  the  religious,87  who  seizes  the  opportunity  of 
his  arrival  to  approach  him.  It  is  true,  as  Kinane  rightly 
states,  that  something  else  is  done  which  is  not  permitted  by 
law,  but  is  upon  the  fulfillment  of  the  prescribed  conditions 
that  the  jurisdiction  depends.88 


77  De  Beligiosis,  (1919),  n.  49. 

78  Manuale  Juris  Ecclesiastici,  (ed  altera),  p.  297. 

79  CpR,  II,  p.  19. 

80  L.  Q.  S.  (1923),  LXXVI,  p.  111. 

81  Ir.  Ecc.  Rec.  (1923),  XXII,  p.  642  ff. 

82  Epit.  (1921),  I,  p.  221;  (1924)  n.  595  (e)  ;  In  the  latter  edition  his 

words  are  not  as  clear  as  in  the  first,  but  it  is  evident  that  he  ac¬ 
cepts  the  more  lenient  opinion. 

83  Beligieux  et  Beligieuses,  (1924),  n.  95;  Am.  Ecc.  Bev.  (1926)  LXXIV, 

507. 

84  L’Etat  Beligieux,  p.  228. 

85  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.,  I,  n.  595. 

so  Kinane,  Ir.  Ecc.  Rec.  XXII,  (1923)  p.  642  ff. 

87  Vermeersch-Creusen,  loc.  cit. 

88  Kinane,  loc.  cit. 


196 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


Summoning  by  telephone  the  general  principles  given  above 
must  be  applied,  for  it  is  not  a  question  of  the  means  of  sum¬ 
moning,  since  that  makes  little  difference,89  but  the  right,  under 
the  canon,  to  summon  him  at  all  to  the  convent.  Moreover, 
nuns  of  solemn  vows  need  permission  even  to  have  a  telephone 
in  the  convent.  Such  an  indult  was  granted  to  the  Bishop 
of  the  Canary  Islands  for  his  nuns.  They  were  allowed  to  have 
a  telephone  to  summon  the  ordinary  confessor.  It  was  required 
that  two  nuns  of  good  character  be  present  with  the  nun  at 
the  time  of  the  telephonic  conversation.90 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  during  the  time  of  jubilee,  the  reli¬ 
gious  has  the  right  to  summon  the  confessor  approved  by  the 
Ordinary  for  both  sexes  for  her  jubilee  confessions,91  which 
can  be  made  twice,  once  to  obtain  the  indulgence  for  the  living 
and  once  for  the  dead. 


III.  The  Confessor . 

The  confessor  should  be  approved  for  the  confessions  of 
women  by  the  local  Ordinary.  This  is  a  change  over  the  reply 
of  the  Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regulars  of  August  27, 
1852, 92  which  required  that  he  be  approved  for  the  confessions 
of  both  sexes.  In  1872  the  same  congregation  only  required 
that  he  be  approved  by  the  Ordinary93  as  did  the  Sacred  Peni¬ 
tentiary  in  190194  and  the  “Normae”  of  the  same  year.95  But 
this  was  changed  again  to  approval  for  both  sexes  by  the  de¬ 
cree  “Cum  de  Sacramentalibus. ”96  The  Code  has  made  this  re¬ 
quirement  to  read  “approved  for  the  confessions  of  women.”yT 


89  Goyeneche,  CpR,  IV,  (1923),  p.  3,  $  7. 

90  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Canarien.  March  20,  1895;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (1907), 

n.  1891.  Leitner,  Handbuch,  ( Dritte  Lieferung,  Das  Ordensrecht) 
p.  444. 

91  Pius  XI,  Const.  Universis  Christifidelibus,  Dec.  25,  1925;  pt.  II  ad 

Facultates,  n.  II;  AAS  XVII;  014;  cf.  II  Monitore  Ecc.  C1925) 
XXXVIII,  p.  11. 

92  Bizzarri,  p.  129. 

93  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Atrabaten.  Apr.  22,  1872  ad  3;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.v  (1893), 

n.  433. 

94  Vermeersch,  De  Rel.  II,  n.  233,  Feb.  7. 

93  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  June  28,  1901,  art.  149. 

96  S.  C.  De  Rel.  Feb.  3,  1913;  n.  14;  AAS  V,  64, 

97  Augustine,  III,  p.  162. 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience  197 

This  approbation  is  necessary  for  validity  of  the  confession 
and  absolution,  for  the  religious  in  the  case  contemplated  by 
Canon  522  are  made  equal  to  secular  women.  But  where  special 
approbation  is  required  to  hear  the  confessions  of  women,  this 
approbation  is  understood  as  being  necessary  for  validity.  The 
custom  in  our  country  is  that  priests  are  approved  to  hear  the 
confessions  of  both  men  and  women  at  once  after  ordination. 
But  in  some  countries  such  as  England,  Belgium,  France  and 
in  Rome  and  certain  dioceses  of  Italy  and  Spain  and,  according 
to  Augustine,,  even  in  our  own  state  of  Louisiana,  the  ordina¬ 
ries  give  special  faculties  for  the  hearing  of  women’s  con¬ 
fessions.  This  is  generally  done  five  years  after  the  priest  has 
been  approved  for  the  confessions  of  men.98  In  our  country, 
for  the  greater  part,  faculties  are  granted  in  some  such  formula 
as  the  following,  “ad  audiendas  confessiones  Christi  fidelium.,> 
Hence,  wherever  the  clause  “ pro  midieribus  approbatus”  is  not 
in  use,  the  confessor  of  the  faithful  of  both  sexes  has  the  faculty 
of  hearing  the  confessions  of  sisters,  who  approach  him  in  a 
church,  semi-public  or  public  oratory  or  a  place  legitimately 
destined  for  the  confessions  of  women  by  the  Ordinary.99 

The  general  principle  of  canon  law  is,  that  special  jurisdic¬ 
tion  is  required  to  hear  the  confessions  of  religious  women 
and  their  novices  (Canon  876,  §  1).  Canonical  logic  demands, 
therefore,  that  this  confessor  be  approved  at  least  for  secular 
women.  Otherwise  the  legislator  would  not  be  consistent  nor 
would  he  conform  to  the  discipline  of  the  past  if  he  gave  reli¬ 
gious  greater  liberty  in  this  matter  than  secular  women.  Under 
the  decree  ‘  ‘  Cum  de  Sacramentalibus,  ’  ’  this  was  expressly  stated 
and  this  approbation  was  considered  by  all  as  necessary  for 
validity.100 

It  might  happen  that  a  priest  would  be  given  faculties  only 

08  Innocent  XIII,  Const.  Apostolici  Ministerii,  May  23,  1723,  §  19,  FJC 
n.  280;  Ballerini,  Opus  Theologicum  Morale  (ed.  1900)  V,  p.  296, 
n.  352,  3°;  Augustine,  loc.  cit.;  Creusen,  op.  cit.  n.  95;  Goyeneche, 
CpR,  II,  p.  19  ff ;  Bastien,  Directoire  Canonique,  n.  360. 

99  Augustine,  III,  p.  162. 

loo  Vermeersch,  Per.  IX,  p.  (14) ;  Goyeneche,  loc.  cit.;  Maroto,  CpR  II, 
p.  37. 


198 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


or  a  religious  priest  who  has  not  received  the  regular  diocesan 
faculties.  This  would  be  the  case  if  he  is  only  appointed  as 
confessor  to  a  certain  community,  as  might  easily  happen  to 
retreat  masters.  In  view  of  the  fact  that  he  has  been  approved 
for  the  confessions  of  these  religious  women,  he  could  hear  the 
confessions  of  any  religious  woman  approaching  him  in  virtue 
of  Canon  522  and  he  need  have  no  scruples.101  In  regard  to 
the  Ordinary,  who  is  to  approve  the  confessor,  the  same  prin¬ 
ciples  apply  here  as  mentioned  under  Canon  519.  It  is  the  local 
Ordinary  of  the  place  where  the  confessions  are  to  be  heard, 
who  alone  can  grant  this  approbation  and  jurisdiction.102  The 
priest  with  maritime  faculties  is  an  exception  to  this  general 
rule.  If  he  has  rightly  received  faculties  from  his  own  Ordi¬ 
nary,  or  the  Ordinary  of  the  port  from  which  the  boat  is  to 
leave,  or  to  which  it  is  going,  or  any  intermediate  port,  through 
which  he  passes,  he  can  hear  in  virtue5  of  Canon  522  the  confes¬ 
sion  of  any  religious  woman,  who  is  sailing  with  him  or  who 
comes  to  the  boat  for  any  reason,  or  who  approaches  him  when 
he*  is  called  to  land  for  any  other  reason.  This  confessor  can 
hear  their  confessions  despite  the  fact  that  on  the  journey  the 
boat  passes  through  different  jurisdictions.  He  can  validly  and 
licitly  absolve  from  cases,  even  cases  reserved  to  the  local  Ordi¬ 
nary.  Hearing  religious  women  Tn  virtue  of  Canon  522,  he 
would  have  to  observe  the  other  prescriptions  of  this  canon  in 
regard  to  the  place,  approach,  etc.103 

IV.  The,  Place  of  Confession. 

The  place  of  confession  was  not  mentioned  in  the  early 
concessions,  for  confession  outside  of  the  convent.  Yet  before 
the  Code  the  religious  of  the  dioceses  of  Malines  and  Tours  had 
the  right  to  confess  when  outside  of  their  convent  for  some 
days  to  any  priest  approved  for  the  faithful.  In  solving  a  case 
in  regard  to  confessions  by  these  religious,  the  Sacred  Peniten- 

101  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  595. 

102  Can.  874,  $  1;  876,  $  2:  883. 

108  Can.  883;  Blat,  III  pars  I,  n.  206.;  Cf.  Can.  519,  where  these 
principles  are  clearly  stated  in  regard  to  male  religious. 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience  199 

tiary104  presupposed  that  the  confessions  which  it  declares 
valid  were  made  in  a  church.  The  Congregation  of  Bishops 
and  Regulars  in  the  “Normae”  of  1901105  incorporated  this 
idea  into  article  149,  which  gave  to  the  sisters  the  right  to 
confess  to  a  priest  approved  by  the  bishop,  if  they  did  so  in  a 
public  church.  The  decree  “Cum  de  Sacramentalibus”  gave 
further  liberty  by  extending  this  to  confession  made  in  any 
oratory,  whether  public  or  semi-public,  outside  of  the  convent.106 
The  Code  permits  the  exercise  of  this  faculty  even  in  the  ora¬ 
tories  of  their  convents  and  the  Commission  for  the  Authentic 
Interpretation  of  the  Code107  declared  that  confessions  could 
be  heard  in  virtue  of  Canon  522  in  any  place  legitimately  des¬ 
tined  by  the  local  Ordinary  for  the  confessions  of  women. 

A.  General  Law  on  the  Place  for  the  Reception  of  the 

Confessions  of  Women. 

(1)  The  proper  place  for  sacramental  confession  is  a 
church  or  a  public  or  semi-public  oratory.108 

(2)  The  confessional  for  the  hearing  of  women’s  confes¬ 
sions,  should  always  be  located  in  an  open  and  conspicuous 
place  and  generally  in  a  church,  or  a  public  or  semi-public 
oratory  destined  for  women.109  (3)  The  confessional  should 
have  a  fixed  screen,  containing  small'  perforations,  between  the 
penitent  and  confessor.110  (4)  The  confessions  of  women  should 
not  be  heard  outside  of  the  confessional  unless  in  cases  of  sick¬ 
ness  or  some  other  true  necessity.  Even  then  the  priest  should 
use  those  precautions  which  the  local  Ordinary  has  judged 
opportune.111  It  is  to  be  noted  in  this  regard  that  the  con- 


104  Feb.  9,  1901;  Vermeersch,  De  Eel.  II,  n.  233,  p.  498. 

105  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  June  28;  cf.  Boudinhon,  CC,  36,  p.  412. 
100  s.  C.  De  Rel.  Feb.  3,  1913,  n.  14;  AAS  V,  64. 

107  Nov.  24,  1920  de  religiosis,  ad  III;  AAS  XII,  575. 

108  Can.  908. 

109  Can.  909,  $  1. 
no  Can.  909,  $  2. 

1U  Can.  910,  $$  1,  2. 


200 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


fessionals  of  nuns  should  be  so  placed  that  the  confessor  is 
outside  of  the  cloister  and  the  nuns  within.112  This  is  generally 
accomplished  by  having  a  permanent  grating  placed  in  the  wall 
of  the  sacristy  of  their  chapel. 

Therefore,  in  discussing  the  question  of  the  validity  and 
liceity  in  reference  to  the  place,  three  elements  must  be  con¬ 
sidered:  (1)  the  church,  which  certainly  is  a  suitable  place  for 
receiving  such  confession,  since  it  is  destined  for  the  use  of  the 
faithful  in  the  exercise  of  divine  worship  and  the  reception  of 
the  sacraments.113 

(2)  Public  oratories  are  erected  mainly  for  the  convenience 
of  some  college  or  even  private  persons.  The  faithful  have  the 
right,  legitimately  proven,  of  going  there  at  least  at  the  time 
of  divine  offices.114  (3)  Oratories  are  semi-public  if  erected 
for  the  convenience  of  some  community,  and  the  faithful  have 
not  the  right  of  going  there.115  Semi-public  oratories  may  be 
found  in  major  and  minor  seminaries ;  hospitals ;  orphan  asy¬ 
lums  ;  homes  for  the  aged ;  monasteries  of  religious  men  and 
women,  whether  of  solemn  or  simple  vows;  in  colleges  and 
schools  of  every  kind,  even  if  they  are  under  state  control.110 
In  all  churches  and  oratories  then,  except  private  oratories, 
which  are  erected  in  private  houses  for  the  sole  use  of  some 
family  or  private  person,  confessions  may  be  heard  in  virtue 
of  Canon  522.  Unlike  the  law  of  1913,  this  includes  not  only 
all  churches  and  oratories  outside  of  those  of  the  religious,  but 
also  those  of  their  own  convent  or  community.  This  is  the 
universal  opinion  of  canonists  and  theologians,  for  the  Code 


112  s.  c.  De  Rel.  Instructio  de  Clausura,  Feb.  6,  1924,  II,  3°;  AAS  XVI, 
p.  95. 

H3  Can.  1161. 

H4  Can.  1188,  $  $  1,  2,  1°. 

U5  ibid.  2°. 

iu>  Gasparri,  De  Eucliaristia,  n.  213;  Wernz,  Jus  Decretalium,  III,  n.  457; 
Choupin,  L’Etat  Religieux,  p.  229. 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience 


201 


hay  omitted  the  words  “extra*  propriam  domum”  of  the  decree 
‘  ‘  Cum  de  Sacramentalibus.  ’  ’ 117 

III.  Places  legitimately  destined  for  confessions  of  women. 

Canon  522  only  mentiones  churches  and  public  and  semi¬ 
public  oratories  as  the  approved  places  in  which  the  confes¬ 
sions  of  religious  women  can  be  heard.  The  Pontifical  Com¬ 
mission  for  the  Interpretation  of  the  Code  was  asked  whether 
confessions  made  outside  of  these  places  would  be  not  oidy 
illicit  but  invalid.  The  commission  answered  “Canon  522,  ita 
est  intelligendum,  ut  confessiones,  quas  ad  suae  conscientiae 
tranquilitatem  religiosae  peragunt  apud  conf essarium  ah  Ordi- 
nario  loci  pro  mulierihus  approbatum,  licitae  et  validae  sint , 
dummodo  fiant  in  ecclesia  vel  oratorio  semi-publico,  aut  in  loco 
ad  audiendas  confessiones  mulierum  legitime  destinato.”  118 

The  right  to  legitimately  designate  such  places  belongs  to 
the  Ordinary  of  the  place  where  the  confessions  are  to  be  heard. 
Yet  the  immediate  and  the  direct  intervention  of  the  Ordinary 
personally  in  designating  individual  places  does  not  seem  nec¬ 
essary.119  This  can  be  done  through  his  delegate.120  The  ap¬ 
proval  of  the  Ordinary  may  be  explicit,  but  even  his  implicit 
approval  seems  to  be  sufficient,  e.  g.,  if  these  places  satisfy  the 
prescriptions  of  the  Ordinary  in  regard  to  the  place  of  confes¬ 
sion  ;  or  the  precautions  to  be  used ;  or  if,  on  his  canonical 
visitation,  the  Ordinary  diligently  inspects  these  places.  Other¬ 
wise  it  seems  that  that  designation  must  be  considered  as  legi- 


117  Genicot,  Theo.  Mor.  II,  n.  339;  Vermeersch,  Summa,  n.  190;  Noldin, 
Be  Baer.,  n.  350;  Blat,  II,  n.  585;  Augustine,  III,  p.  162;  Cocchi, 
II  pars  II,  n.  42;  Creusen,  Beligieux  et  Beligieuses,  n.  95;  II  Moni¬ 
tor  e,  XXXI  (1919),  p.  158;  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  229;  Bastien, 
Directoire  Canoniqae,  n.  360 ;  Arregui,  Summarium  Theol.  Mor. 
(1923),  n.  605;  Goyeneche,  CpR,  II,  p.  20;  Chelodi,  Jus  de  Per- 
sonis,  n.  258 ; ,  Priimmer,  Manuale  J.  C.  n.  190  ;  note  4;  Papi,  Be- 
ligious  in  Church  Law,  p.  55;  Sabetti-Barrett,  Compendium  Theologiae 
M oralis,  n.  778,  in  the  early  editions  after  the  Code  restrained  the 
use  of  this  faculty  to  those  churches  and  oratories  outside  of  the 
convent  in  keeping  with  the  Decree  ‘‘Cum  de  Sacramentalibus. ” 
This  has  been  changed  in  the  edition  of  1924. 

H8  Nov.  24,  1920,  de  religiosis  ad  III;  AAS  Y,  575. 

H9  Goyeneche,  CpR,  II,  p.  38. 

120  Bastien,  op.  cit.,  n.  360;  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  229. 


202 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


timate  which  is  made  by  their  proper  and  immediate  local 
superior  or  rector.121 

The  following  places  can  considered  as  legitimately  des¬ 
tined  for  the  confessions  of  women;  (1)  confessionals  in  hos¬ 
pitals,  erected  in  some  suitable  place  outside  of  the  church  or 
oratory,  legitimately  destined  for  the  convenience  or  use  of 
sick  women;  (2)  the  same  kind  of  confessionals  in  schools  and 
colleges  for  hearing  the  confessions  of  girls;  (3)  in  retreat 
houses,  in  the  places  appointed  legitimately  for  the  confessions 
of  women  making  the  retreats;  (4)  confessionals  in  the  sacristy 
or  other  places  adjacent  to  the  church  or  oratory,  legitimately 
destined  for  the  confessions  of  deaf  women.  Even  if  the  sister 
be  not  deaf,  she  can  approach  the  confessor  of  Canon  522  in 
the  last  mentioned  confessional.122 

I.  Question — Would  the  words  uloco  ad  audiendas  con- 
fessiones  mulierum  legitimate  destinato”  include  confessionals, 
located  outside  of  a  church  or  oratory  and  reserved  exclusively 
for  the  confessions  of  women  religious? 

First  Opinion — replies  in  the  negative  since  the  place  of 
confession  must  be  understood,  at  least  primarily  and  directly, 
as  the  one  legitimately  appointed  for  the  reception  of  the  con¬ 
fessions  of  secular  women.  A. — The  word  midieres  in  Canon 
522  certainly  stands  for  secular  women.  Therefore,  since  it 
does  not  expressly  refer  to  religious  women,  should  it  not  be 
received  in  the  same  sense  in  the  response  of  the  commission 
making  a  declaration  of  the  meaning  of  that  canon.123 
B. — The  confessor,  treated  of  here,  is  considered  as  approved 
only  for  the  confessions  of  secular  women,  since  Canon  522 
contains  an  exception  to  Canon  876,  §  1,  requiring  special  juris¬ 
diction  for  the  confessions  of  religious  women  and  their  novices. 
The  quality  of  the  confessor  should  then  correspond  to  the 
quality  of  the  place  and  it  would  be  far  fetched  to  suppose 
that,  when  the  response  referred  to  a  confessor  approved  for  se¬ 
cular  women,  it  did  not  mean  to  signify,  primarily  and  directly, 

121  Goyencche,  loc.  cit.;  Creusen  op.  cit.,  n.  95. 

122  Goyeneche,  CpR,  II,  p.  38,  $  IV. 

123  Maroto,  CpR,  II,  p.  37;  Fanfani,  De  Jure  Religiosorum,  n.  137  (1925). 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience 


203 


a  place  also  intended  for  secular  women.124  C. — Religious 
women,  when  making  confession  in  virtue  of  Canon  522,  do  so 
not  after  the  manner  of  religious  or  inasmuch  as  they  are  reli¬ 
gious  but  after  the  fashion  of  secular  women.  Hence,  the  reason 
why  they  can  confess  their  sins  to  any  confessor  approved  tor 
secular  women,  is  evident.  Therefore,  the  place  for  hearing 
confessions  of  this  kind  must  conform  to  that  in  which  secular 
women  are  wont  to  make  their  confessions.125  D. — If  this  con¬ 
cession  is  extended  to  include  the  confessional  of  religious  wo¬ 
men,  the  distinct  mention  in  the  Code  and  the  response  of  the 
Commission,  of  the  church,  oratory  or  place  legitimately  des¬ 
tined  for  confessions  of  women,  is  useless.  They  could  have 
said  more  clearly  and  briefly,  that  such  confessions  would  be 
valid  and  licit  if  made  in  any  place  legitimately  destined  for 
the  confessions  of  secular  women  or  religious.126 

This  opinion  is  subscribed  to  by  Fanfani/27  Maroto/28 
Gury-Ferreres/29  Mahoney/30  Cocchi  131  and  Chelodi/32  and 
therefore  has  extrinsic  probability  at  least. 

Second  opinion — which  permits  confessions  in  virtue  of 
Canon  522,  even  in  confessionals  reserved  to  religious,  is  the 
better.133 

Reply  to  objections. — It  does  not  follow  from  the  fact  that 
the  phrase  ‘‘pro  mulieribus  approbation  ”  is  used  in  Canon  522 
and  the  reply  of  the  Pontifical  Commission  taken  in  conjunc¬ 
tion  with  the  phrase  of  this  same  reply  “loco  ad  confessiones 
mulierum  legitime  destinato”  that  the  word  “muiierum”  must 
be  taken  in  exactly  the  same  sense,  thereby  excluding  the  con¬ 
fessionals  of  religious  women.  The  generic  term  mulier  is  used 
in  both  Canon  522  and  the  reply  in  which  the  commission  did 

124  Maroto,  op.  cit.  II,  p.  36.  ff. 

125  Maroto,  loc.  cit. 

126  Fanfani,  op.  cit.  n.  137. 

127  loc.  cit. 

128  CpR,  II,  p.  36  ff. 

129  Casus  Conscientiae,  II,  n.  573  (1921) ;  claims  that  it  would  be  invalid. 

130  Am.  Ecc.  Eev.  LXXIV,  (1926),  p.  43. 

131  Commentarium  in  C.  I.  C.,  II,  pars  II,  n.  42. 

132  Jus  de  Personis,  n.  258. 

133  Creusen,  op.  cit.,  n.  95. 


204 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


nothing  else  but  accommodate  the  words  of  Canon  909,  §  1, 
“oratorio  semi-publico  mulieribus  destinato”  and  the  word 
mulieribus  in  this  canon  certainly  has  an  extensive  sense.134 

The  arguments  of  the  other  opinion  are  not  exact.  A. — 
The  word  mulieres  does  not  necessarily  apply  to  secular  women 
alone,  for  it  is  a  generic  term  and  includes  religious  women. 
Therefore,  a  priest  approved  only  for  the  confessions  of  the 
religious  of  a  convent,  and  having  no  other  jurisdiction,  can  hear 
the  confessions  of  religious  who  approach  him  in  virtue  of 
Canon  522. 135  As  stated  above,  the  word  mulieres  is  used  to 
show  that  approbation  for  the  confessions  of  men  alone  would 
not  suffice.  It  seems  a  strange  deduction  to  exclude  from  the 
office  of  hearing  the  confessions  of  religious  women  in  virtue  of 
Canon  522,  the  very  priests  who  have  received  special  approval 
for  the  confessions  of  some  religious  women  from  the  local  Ordi- 
nary.  Therefore,  since  this  word  in  the  canon  does  not  exclude 
religious  women,  it  should  be  received  in  the  same  sense  in  the 
reply  of  the  Pontifical  Commission.  B. — As  proven  above,136 
Canon  522  is  not  an  exception  to  Canon  876,  §  1,  but  a  pres¬ 
cription  of  law  recognized  and  confirmed  by  that  very  canon. 
Canon  876  states  that  in  the  circumstances  of  Canon  522,  the 
confessor  of  women  religious  need  not  have  the  special  appro¬ 
bation  of  the  local  Ordinary  for  such  a  confession,  but  it  does 
not,  by  any  means,  say  that  a  priest  endowed  with  such  special 
faculties  could  not  act  in  virtue  of  Canon  522.  Therefore,  the 
only  argument  that  can  be  drawn  from  the  word  mulierum  in 
the  response  of  the  commission  is  that  it  applies  indiscriminately 
to  all  women  and  thus  confessions  can  be  heard  in  virtue  of 
Canon  522  in  confessionals  of  women,  whether  secular  of  reli¬ 
gious.  C. — Neither  is  it  exact  to  state  that  they  confess  like 
secular  women.  They  are  similar  to  them  only  inasmuch  as  they 
can  choose  their  confessor,  but  they  are  restricted  in  the  exer¬ 
cise  of  this  choice  by  many  conditions  of  motive,  approach,  etc., 

134  u  Monitore  Ecclesiastico,  (1921),  XXXIII,  160. 

185  cf.  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  595  (f). 

130  p.  226;  Vermeerseh,  Per.  XI,  p.  (14) ;  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit. 

(1921)  I,  n.  59,  p.  498. 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience 


205 


with  which  secular  women  are  not  burdened.  No  valid  argu¬ 
ment  can  be  drawn,  therefore,  from  the  fact  that  they  can 
choose  a  confessor,  that  they  must  confess  only  in  confessionals 
used  by  secular  women.  If  female  religious  have  so  many  con¬ 
ditions  to  fulfill  in  using  Canon  522,  why  must  they  be  pre¬ 
vented  from  complying  with  these  requirements  in  the  place 
where  one  would  naturally  expect  this  to  be  done,  i.  e.,  their 
own  confessionals?  D. — The  fourth  argument  of  the  first  opin¬ 
ion  that  the  extension  of  this  reply  to  include  confessionals  of 
religious  argues  for  a  useless  distinction  in  the  Code  and  the 
reply  of  the  Commission  between  churches  and  oratories  and 
places  legitimately  destined  for  the  confessions  of  women, 
proves  too  much.  It  would  be  just  as  logical  to  conclude  that, 
since  the  reply  of  the  Commission  has  the  phrase  “loco  ad  eon- 
fessiones  mulierum  legitime  destinato,  ”  the  explicit  mention 
in  the  Code  and  the  reply  of  the  Commission  of  churches 
and  oratories  is  useless  since  these  are  places  legitimately  des¬ 
tined  for  confessions  and  are  comprised  in  the  broader  term. 

Arguments. 

I.  Creusen  states  well,  “confessionals  approved  for  secular 
women”  137  do  not  exist.  The  Code  merely  states  that  without  a 
grave  reason,  one  cannot  hear  women’s  confessions  except  in 
a  confessional  which  has  a  fixed  screen,  is  accessible  to  all 
and  in  sight  .  .  .  (cf.  Canon  909).  Evidently  this  confessional 
is  a  legitimate  place  in  which  to  hear  the  confession  of  a  nun, 
who  legitimately  presents  herself. 

To  use  the  words  of  Creusen  “the  confessionals  in  convents 
satisfy  all  the  conditions  required  that  a  woman  of  the  world 
should  be  able  to  confess  there ;  without  that  a  nun  could  not 
confess  there.  For,  after  all,  a  nun  is  a  woman.  If  any  dif¬ 
ference  had  to  be  made,  more  guarantees  would  have  to  be 
demanded  for  nuns’  confessionals  than  for  those  of  secular 
women.  ’  ’ 138 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  confessionals  erected  for 


137  Creusen,  Am.  Ecc.  Eev.  (1926),  LXXIV,  507  ff. 

138  Creusen,  Am.  Ecc.  Eev.  (1926),  LXXIV,  507  ff. 


206 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


cloistered  nuns  are  to  be  considered  as  true  confessionals  suit¬ 
able  for  the  confessions,  not  only  of  women  living  in  the  con¬ 
vent,  but  even  any  secular  woman  legitimately  within  the  en¬ 
closure,139  when  the  following  reply  of  the  Holy  Office  of  No¬ 
vember  25,  1874  is  consulted. 

1.  — An  loca  in  quibus  excipi  solent  conf essiones  monialium 
habenda  sint  ut  loca  destinata  ad  audiendas  conf  essiones,  vel  ut 
vera  confessionalia. 

2.  — An  idem  dicendum  sit  de  locis  constructis  ad  formam 
eorum,  in  quibus  excipi  solent  conf  essiones  monialium  claustra- 
lium,  in  quibus  excipiuntur  conf  essiones  mulierum  degentium  in 
locis  quae  vulgo  dicuntur  conservatorii,  ritiri. 

3.  — Quatenus  habenda  sint  ut  vera  confessionalia,  utrum 
talia  censenda  sint  solum  quoad  moniales  et  alias  degentes  in 
praedictis  locis,  an  etiam  quoad  alias  mulieres  extraneas. 

Resp.  Ad  tria  dubia  prout  exponuntur ;  Affirmative .14° 

II.  The  restriction  of  the  other  opinion,  without  serious 
foundation,  deprives  all  nuns,  against  the  evident  intention  of 
the  legislator  and  with  grave  detriment,  of  the  right  conferred 
by  Canon  522,  since  they  cannot  leave  the  cloister.141  That 
nuns  have  this  right  is  evident  from  the  words  of  Canon  522, 
which  confers  it  upon  “aliqua  religiosa,  ”  and  the  reply  of  the 
Commission,  which  repeats  the  word  “religiosae.  ”  But  as  has 
been  proven  above,142  the  word  “religiosa”  is  a  generic  term 
including  all  religious  women  without  distinction.143  Fanfani 
tries  to  solve  this  difficulty  by  saying  that  the  Code  realizing 
this,  gives  them  a  special  spiritual  director  for  their  peace  of 
their  conscience  in  Canon  520,  §  2.144  But  it  must  be  remem¬ 
bered  that  this  director  is  given  for  a  permanent  need  or  utility. 
The  purpose  of  Canon  522,  on  the  contrary,  is  to  meet  the  tem¬ 
porary  and  passing  needs  of  the  individual  religious.  It  may 

139  Creuscn,  loc.  cit. 

140  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (1893),  n.  435;  (1907),  n.  1424;  cf.  Vermeersch- 

Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  595. 

141  Creuscn,  Religieux  et  Peligieuses,  n.  95. 

142  p. 

143  Can.  488,  7°;  cf.  Goyeneche,  CpR  (1921),  II,  p.  14. 

144  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  137. 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience 


207 


easily  happen  that  a  nun  has  some  very  urgent  reason  for 
going  to  confession  at  the  time  and  place  that  the  priest’s  pres¬ 
ence  offers  and  it  would  be  a  great  difficulty  for  her  to  wait 
until  the  spiritual  director  was  called.  To  refuse  nuns  the  use 
of  Canon  522  in  their  own  confessionals,  is  to  snatch  from  the 
strictly  cloistered  the  greatest  benefice  that  the  history  of  con¬ 
fessional  discipline  has  granted  to  them,  since  only  the  most 
extraordinary  occasions  warrant  their  leaving  the  convent.145 

IV.  Extrinsic  probability  can  certainly  be  claimed  for  this 
opinion  since  it  has  the  support  of  Vermeersch-Creusen,148 
the  “II  Monitore  Ecclesiastico,”  147  Creusen,148  Genicot- 
Salsmans  149  and  Papi.150 

Conclusion. — ' This  is  very  well  presented  in  the  words  of 
Creusen,151  “Hence  only  by  openly  abusing  the  context  or  the 
literal  sense  of  the  words  can  one  deny  to  nuns  the  right  to 
confess  in  their  confessional  within  the  limits  of  Canon  522.” 

II.  Question. 

Is  the  clause  in  Canon  522  and  the  reply  of  the  Pontifical 
Commission  for  the  Authentic  Interpretation  of  the  Code  in 
regard  to  the  place  of  confession  necessary  for  validity,  so  that 
confessions  heard  and  absolutions  given  in  other  places  than  a 
church,  oratory  or  place  legitimately  destined  for  the  confes¬ 
sions,  would  be  invalid? 

First  opinion. — Such  confessions  w7ould  be  invalid.  This 
is  based  on  the  reply  of  the  Commission,  “Canon  522,  ita  est 
intelligendum,  ut  confessiones  .  .  .  licitae  et  validae  sint  dum- 
modo  fiant  in  ecclesia  vel  oratorio  semi- publico  aut  in  loco  ad 
audiendas  confessiones  mulierum,  legitime  destinato.”  152  The 

145  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  595. 

146  Epit.  I,  n.  595. 

147  (1921)  XXXIII,  162. 

148  Eeligieux  et  Eeligieuses,  n.  95;  cf.  Am.  Ecc.  Eev.  (1926),  LXXIV, 

507  ff. 

149  Theol.  Mor.  II,  n.  339,  p.  304,  note  3. 
iso  Eeligious  in  Church  Law,  p.  57. 

loi  Am.  Ecc.  Rev.  loc.  cit. 

152  Com.  Pont,  ad  CC  Auth.  Inter.  Nov.  24,  1920,  de  religiosis,  ad  3;  AAS 
XII,  575;  cf.  LQS  (1920)  LXXIV,  150. 


208 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


“ dummodo ”  clause  is  rigorously  interpreted  as  having  the 
sense  that  these  confessions  are  valid  and  licit,  provided  they 
are  heard  in  these  places.  Appeal  is  made  in  proof  of  this 
to  Canon  39  “  Conditiones  in  rescript  is  tunc  tantum  essentiales 
pro  ecrumdem  validitate  sunt,  cum<  per  particulars,  si,  dummodo, 
vel  asliarn  ejusdem  significations  exprimantur.”  Therefore,  the 
studious  insertion  of  this  “ dummodo ”  clause  which  was  omit¬ 
ted  in  Canon  522,  was  equivalent  to  the  explicit  declaration  that 
this  clause  contains  a  condition  essential  for  validity  in  the 
concession  made  by  the  Pontifical  Commission  by  way  of  a 
general  rescript  to  Canon  522.  This  “dummodo”  clause  im¬ 
plies  a  condition  ‘  *  sine  qua  non.  ’  ’ 153 

This  opinion  has  the  support  of  the  following  authorities, 
Blat,154  Fanfani,155  II  Monitore  Ecclesiastico,156  Bastien.157 

Second  opinion — that  the  circumstance  of  place  is  only  re¬ 
quired  for  liceity  is  the  better. 

1.  The  nullity  of  such  confessions  is  neither  expressly 
or  equivalently  decided  anywhere  in  the!  Code  (Canon  908-910) 
as  would  be  required  by  Canon  11. 158 

2.  The  question  asked  of  the  Commission  was  whether  con¬ 
fessions  made  outside  of  a  church,  or  semi-public  oratory  were 
not  only  illicit  but  also  invalid.  The  Commission,  by  answering 
this  question  directly,  could  have  easily  settled  the  doubt,  but 
it  evidently  was  unwilling  to  declare  invalid  those  confessions 
made  in  virtue  of  Canon  522  outside  of  the  places  mentioned. 
The  reply  just  stated  that  confessions  made  according  to  the 
prescriptions  of  Canon  522,  provided  that  they  were  made  in 

153  Oesterle,  AKKR  (1923),  LXXVII,  p.  138  ff;  synopsized  by  Schweiger, 

CpR,  V,  58;  Bastien,  states  (Directoire  Canonique,  p.  228,  note  (1)  ) 
he  has  sufficient  authority  for  believing  that  the  Commission  in¬ 
tended  the  “dummodo”  clause  to  be  abrogating.  Such  an  asser¬ 
tion  has  no  juridical  value,  his  conviction  unsubstantiated  by  his 
reason  has  no  force. 

154  II  pars  II,  n.  585. 

155  Dc  Jure  Eeligiosorum,  n.  137. 

156  vol.  XXXIII,  p.  160. 

157  loc.  cit. 

158  Can.  11 — Irritantes  aut  inhabilit  antes  eae  tantum  leges  habendae  sunt, 

quibus  aut  actum  esse  nullum  aut  inhabilem  esse  personam  expresse 
vel  aequivalenter  statuitur;  cf.  Hecht,  Theologie  und  Glaube  (1924) 
16,  p.  482-491  as  synopsized  by  Schweiger,  CpR,  V,  59. 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience  209 

churches,  semi-public  oratories  or  places  legitimately  destined 
for  the  confessions  of  women,  are  valid  and  licit,  but  it  did 
not  refer  to  the  validity  of  confessions  made  outside  of  these 
place^.159  It  cannot  be  definitely  determined  whether  the 
“dummodo”  clause  refers  to  both  words  “licita”  and  “valida” 
or  only  the  former.  Therefore,  the  reply  might  be  interpreted 
as  follows :  the  confessions  wrhich  religious  women  make  for 
their  peace  of  conscience  to  a  priest  approved  by  the  local  Ordi¬ 
nary  for  women,  are  valid  and  provided  they  are  made  in  a 
church,  etc.,  are  even  licit.  The  Commission,  as  is  evident,  bor¬ 
rowing  the  words  of  the  response  from  Canon  522,  transcribes 
the  same  ambiguity  under  which  they  labor  in  the  canon.  There¬ 
fore,  it  must  be  deduced  that  the  interpretation  of  this  question 
is  left  to  the  students  of  the  law.160 

3. — This  is  further  strengthened  by  the  response  given  be¬ 
fore  the  Code  to  the  bishop  of  Linz  by  the  Congregation  for 
Religious  on  July  3,  1916, 161  which  stated  that  the  word  “liceat” 
of  the  decree  “Cum  de  Sacramentalibus ’ ’  no.  14,  “liceat  in 
qualib^t  ecclesia  vel  oratorio  etiam  semi-publico ”  did  not  affect 
the  validity  of  confessions  made  by  religious  women  to  a  simply 
approved  priest  when  outside  their  convent.  Neither  did  it 
prohibit  the  making  of  such  confessions  outside  of  a  church  or 
semi-public  oratory,  but  in  some  fitting  place.  This  clause  of 
the  decree  of  1913  has  been  transcribed  into  Canon  522,  in  which 
the  discipline  of  the  old  law  is  not  restricted  but  extended. 
Therefore,  this  clause  in  Canon  522  must  be  interpreted  in  the 
light  of  the  decree  of  1913, 162  as  not  affecting  the  validity  of 
the  confession  or  absolution,  but  only  the  liceity. 

3.  Extrinsic  probability .  The  majority  of  commentators 
have  allied  themselves  in  accepting  this  view.  Brandys163  and 

159  Goyeneche,  CpR,  II,  21,  22  note  (26);  Mahoney,  Em.  Ecc.  Rev.  (1926), 

LXXIY,  p.  42;  Papi.  Religious  in  Church  Law,  p.  57. 

160  Goyeneche,  CpR  (1921),  II,  p.  21;  Hecht,  loc.  cit. 

161  ad  1,  Verbum  “liceat”  numeri  14  Decreti  “Cum  de  Sacramentalibus  ” 

neque  respicit  validitatem  confessionum  neque  prohibitionem  confes- 
sionern  peragendi  in  alio  decenti  loco ;  (not  officially  edited) ;  cf. 
Vermeersch,  Per.  IX,  p.  (14);  AKKR,  97,  p.  85. 

162  Can.  6,  2°,  3°,  4°;  cf.  Hecht;  as  synopsized  by  Schweiger,  loc.  cit. 

163  EirchlicJies  Bechtsbuch,  n.  151. 


210 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


Goyeneciie164  call  it  solidly  probable,  while  Aertnys-Damen163 
say  it  is  more  probable.  Others  defending  this  view  are  Creu- 
sen,166  Lindsman,167  Prummer,168  Papi,169  Leitner,170  Chou- 
pin,171  Chelodi,172  Hecpit  173  and  Mahoney.174 

Vermeersch  175  and  the  In  Monitore  Ecclesiastico  176 
formerly  held  this  view,  but  after  the  reply  of  the  Commission 
retracted  it,  accepting  the  other  view.177 

Confessions  in  Places  not  Legitimately  Destined  for 
the  Confessions  of  Women 

Confessions  of  women  can  be  heard  in  such  places  in  cases 
of  infirmity  or  any  other  true  necessity,  according  to 


CANON  910. 

§  1.  Feminarum  confessiones  extra  sedem  confession- 
alem  ne  audiantur,  nisi  ex  causa  infirmitatis  aliave  verae 
necessitatis  et  adhibitis  cautelis  quas  Ordinarius  loci  op- 
portunas  iudicaverit. 

In  cases  of  necessity  the  priest  approved  for  the  confessions 
women  could  hear  the  confessions  of  religious  women  approach¬ 
ing  him  for  that  purpose  in  virtue  of  Canon  522,  outside  of  the 
confessional.  It  is  solidly  probable  that  the  prescription  of 
Canon  522  and  the  reply  of  the  Pontifical  Commission  in  regard 


164  CpK,  II,  21  ff. 

165  Theol.  Mor.  II,  n.  378. 

166  Nouvelle  Revue  Theologique  (1921),  p.  55;  quoted  by  Vermeersch- 

Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  595,  as  stating  that  it  is  solidly  probable  and 
safe. 

167  Nederlandische  Katholicke  Stemmen  (1924),  p.  77;  quoted  by  Ver- 

meersch-Creusen,  loc.  cit.  as  favoring  it. 

168  Manuale  J .  C-,  n.  190. 

169  Religious  in  Church  Law,  p.  57. 

170  Handhuch,  p.  336. 

171  L’Etat  Religieux,  p.  230  footnotes. 

172  Jus  de  Personis,  n.  258. 

173  Theol'ogie  und  Glaube  (1924)  16  p.  488  ff.  Synopsized  by  Schweiger, 

CpR,  V,  59. 

174  Am.  Ecc.  Rev.  (1926)  LXXIV,  p.  42. 

175  Periodica,  IX,  p.  (14). 

176  (1919)  Vol.  I,  series  VI,  p.  158,  n.  39. 

177  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  595;  II  Monitore,  vol.  XXXIII,  160, 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience 


211 


to  the  place  of  confession  do  not  affect  the  validity  of  the  con¬ 
fession  and  absolution.  Such  a  priest,  in  cases  of  necessity,  need 
not  scruple  to  use  this  more  lenient  opinion.  The  division  of 
commentators  in  regard  to  the  force  of  the  phrase  of  the  law 
referring  to  the  place  for  hearing  these  confessions,  gives  rise 
to  a  positive  and  probable  doubt  of  law.  In  these  cases  then,  the 
Church  supplies  the  required  jurisdiction,  according  to  Canon 
209. 

It  will  be  impossible  to  enumerate  all  the  cases  in  which 
these  principles  could  be  applied,  but  the  following  will  serve 
as  examples.  1. — If  a  sister  could  not  go  to  confession  in  a 
public  church  without  very  great  embarrassment,  then  her  con¬ 
fession  could  be  heard  in  a  room  using  a  grate,  if  possible,  but 
necessity  will  excuse  even  from  this.  Papi  proposes  the  two 
next  cases  which  are  very  likely  to  happen,  i.  e.,  (2)  a  priest 
having  only  faculties  for  the  confessions  of  women  visiting  a 
former  penitent,  and  finds  her  sick  in  the  infirmary  of  the 
fconvent.  Even  if  the  sickness  is  not  grave,  provided  it  pre¬ 
vents  the  religious  from  easily  leaving  the  infirmary,  and  she 
ask  him  to  hear  her  confession  he  can  do  so  validly  and  licitly ; 
(3)  The  same  holds  for  the  case  of  a  portress,  who  requests 
such  a  priest  visiting  another  religious  in  the  convent  to  hear 
her  confession.  She  has,  however,  a  great  repugnance  to  going 
to  the  ordinary  place  set  aside  for  the  confessions  of  the  sisters, 
because  owing  to  her  occupation,  she  would  have  to  make  her 
case  public  by  going  there.178  In  such  conditions  he  could  hear 
her  confession  in  the  parlor.  (4)  Thus,  for  similar  reasons,  a 
priest  could  hear  the  confession  of  a  cloistered  nun  who  requests 
it  in  the  parlor  of  the  cloister.  (5)  The  same  holds  on  board  ship, 
if  there  is  not  a  semi-publio  oratory  or  the  place  used  for  Mass 
is  locked  up  or  embarrassment  as  above  would  arise,  then  a  reli¬ 
gious  could  be  heard  in  the  priest’s  cabin  or  some  other  suitable 
place.179  Blat  is  far  too  strict  in  stating  that  such  confessions 
on  board  ship  can  be  made  only  in  a  semi-public  oratory.  That 


178  Papi,  'Religious  in  Church  Law,  p.  57. 

179  Blat,  III  pars  I,  n.  206. 


212 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


would  make  confession  for  religious  women  on  a  voyage  almost 
an  impossibility. 

Grave  necessity  will  excuse  in  all  these  cases  from  using 
the  grate.  It  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  extreme  necessity 
is  not  required  and  sufficient  reason  would  be  danger  or  loss 
of  reputation  or  defamation  of  character,  embarrassment,  or 
the  fact  that  priests  seldom  come  to  the  religious  house  when  it 
would  be  easy  to  approach  them.180 

It  cannot  be  stated  that  this  open;  the  door  to  abuses,  e.  g., 
if  a  religious  would  confess  in  the  parlor.  The  danger  of  the 
abuse  of  liberty  does  not  require  that  the  liberty  for  that  reason 
should  be  taken  away.  This  danger  cannot  be  urged  too  strong¬ 
ly,  for  what  law  is  there,  especially  if  it  favors  liberty,  which 
will  not  give  occasion  for  abuse.  Moreover,  even  if  such  abuses 
should  arise  “  abususnon  tollit  usum”  and  the  solution  is  the 
proposal  by  the  legislator  of  the  proper  remedies  for  its  re¬ 
moval.181 

Conclusion. — A  religious,  to  assure  the  lawfulness  of  her 
confession  should  confess  in  one  of  the  determined  places,  unless 
for  a  just  and  reasonable  cause  it  can  be  prescinded  from. 
Therefore,  the  Ordinary  should  take  sufficient  means  to  prevent 
abuses.182 

Some  authors  propose  a  seeming  difficulty  in  regard  to  the 
liceity  of  confessions  made  in  that  side  of  a  confessional  which 
is  reserved  for  men.  There  is  the  custom  in  some  places  of 
hearing  the  confessions  of  women  from  one  side  of  the  box  ana 
men  from  the  other.  Gury-Ferreres183  and  Fanfani184  claim 
that  if  a  religious  makes  a  confession  in  the  side  reserved  to 
men,  the  confession  is  illicit.  But  as  has  been  shown  before, 
there  are  no  confessionals  recognized  by  law  as  reserved  to  men 
or  to  women.  The  only  prescription  of  law  is  that  the  con- 


iso  Cf.  Kinane,  Ir.  Ecc.  Kec.  (1921),  XVII,  p.  639. 

181  cf.  Goyeneche,  CpR  (1921),  II,  p.  23. 

182  Goyeneche,  op.  cit.,  p.  24;  Am.  Ecc.  Eev.  (1919),  LXI,  447  (1926); 

LXXIV,  43.  •  v  '  '  ' 

183  Casus  Conscientiae  (1921),  II,  n.  257. 

184  Da  Jure  Religiosorum,  n.  110,  f 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience  213 

fessional,  in  which  women’s  confessions  are  to  be  heard,  should 
be  always  located  in  an  open  and  conspicuous  place  and  gen¬ 
erally  in  a  church,  or  a  public  or  semi-public  oratory  destined  for 
women.  This  confessional  should  be  provided  with  a  finely 
perforated  and  fixed  screen,  between  the  penitent  and  con¬ 
fessor.185  Therefore,  if  the  side  of  the  confessional,  which  by 
custom  is  used  solely  by  men,  is  in  a  conspicuous  place  and 
can  be  easily  seen  and  has  the  required  screen,  any  woman  of 
the  world  can  lawfully  confess  there,  since  this  confessional 
satisfies  all  the  conditions  required  by  law  for  the  confessionals 
to  be  used  by  women.  Therefore,  religious  women  can  “a  pari” 
confess  lawfully  in  such  confessionals  in  virtue  of  Canon  522.186 

Suggestions  for  the  Use  of  This  Canon 
1. — By  the  religious. 

A. — Within  the  convent. — Both  nuns  and  sisters  can  address 
themselves,  without  permission,  to  a  simply  approved  confes¬ 
sor  for  the  purpose  of  confessing  to  him  in  their  chapel,  if  they 
observe  the  regular  order  of  exercises.  The  superioress  has  no 
right  to  exclude  one  or  the  other  of  the  confessors,  for  the 
choice  rests  with  the  religious.  If  the  religious  asks  to  con¬ 
fess  to  such  a  confessor  the  superioress  cannot  refuse  her  even 
for  extrinsic  motives,  such  as  the  general  discipline  of  the 
community.  The  superioress  should  submit  the  matter  to  the 
Ordinary  and  accept  his  decision.187  In  the  use  of  Canon  522 
religious  are  not  allowed  to  violate  the  rules  or  constitutions 
or  perform  other  acts  of  disobedience,  e.  g.,  a  teacher  could  not 
seriously  neglect  her  work  to  go  to  confession,  unless  there  is 
good  reason  to  excuse  this.  They  should  ask  permission  to 
leave  class,  or  some  common  exercise.  This  permission  would 
of  piety  held  in  chapel  or  during  study  or  free  periods.  They 
can  make  use  of  this  canon  unknown  to  the  superioress  if  the 
occasion  offers.188 

185  Can.  909;  cf.  Creusen,  Am.  Ecc.  Rev.  (1926),  LXXIV,  507. 

186  Priimmer,  Manuale  J.  C.,  n.  190;  Goyeneche,  CpR  (1921)  II,  24. 

187  s.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Aug.  5,  1904;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (1907),  n.  2204. 


214 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


B.  Outside  of  the  convent. — All  religious  outside  of  the 
convent  for  a  lawful  reason  can  make  use  of  Canon  522  if  they 
do  not  thereby  neglect  some  duty.188a 

1.  Nuns — This  concession  has  not,  however,  changed  the 
canons  or  rules  in  regard  to  the  cloister.189  Therefore  for  nuns 
bound  to  the  observance  of  the  papal  cloister  this  would  not  be 
sufficient  reason  for  leaving  it. 

2.  Sisters — They  can  ask  and  be  given  permission  to  go  out 
for  the  purpose  of  confessing  in  virtue  of  Canon  522,  but  they 
can  not  demand  such  a  permission  when  it  is  contrary  to  the 
usages  of  the  community.190  Neither  can  they  go  out  without 
this  permission  for  such  liberty  would  be  excessive  and  would 
bring  about  the  ruin  of  community  discipline.  Violation  of  this 
prescription  without  any  other  motive  constitutes  an  offense 
against  the  rule  of  not  going  out  without  permission.  The  con¬ 
fessions  would,  however,  be  valid  and  licit.191 

C.  Frequency  of  use. — The  Code  does  not  limit  the  number 
of  times  that  Canon  522  can  be  used.  On  the  other  hand,  al¬ 
though  the  practice  of  confessing  frequently  in  virtue  of  this 
canon  does  not  seem  to  be  prohibited,  it  is  less  in  conformity  to 
the  mind  of  the  legislator.  If  necessity  urges  or  great  spiritual 
benefit  would  be  derived  from  these  frequent  confessions  the 
religious  should  ask  the  local  Ordinary  for  a  special  confessor. 
If  this  request  can  not  be  made  without  grave  inconvenience,  it 
is  certainly  lawful  for  her  to  choose  the  other  way.192  Hence,  a 
'religious  may  choose  another  confessor  in  the  required  circum¬ 
stances  as  often  as  her  peace  of  conscience  dictates.193  She 

188  S.  C.  De  Rel.  Dec.  1,  1921;  cf.  Hilling,  CIC  Interpretatio,  p.  37  ff. 

188a  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  De  Eeligiosis,  n.  48. 

189  S.  C.  De  Rel.  Dec.  1,  1921;  Hilling,  CIC  Interpretatio ,  p.  38;  Creusen, 

op.  cit.,  n.  95;  Aertnys-Damen,  Theol.  Mor.  II,  n.  378. 

190  S.  C.  De  Rel.  Dec.  1,  1921;  Hilling  loc.  cit;  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  141; 

Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  230. 

191  Choupin,  loc.  cit. 

192  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  op.  cit.,  p.  89. 

19S  Augustine,  III,  p.  157;  Vermeersch,  Periodica,  IX,  p.  (14);  Blat,  II 
pars  II,  p.  503;  Goyeneche,  CpR,  II,  p.  17. 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience 


should  also  make  her  regular  appearances  before  the  community 
confessors.194 

D.  Reporting. — If  sisters  when  outside  of  the  convent  for 
any  reason  confess  in  virtue  of  Canon  522,  neither  the  religious 
making  use  of  this  faculty,  nor  those  knowing  of  the  fact,  even 
if  questioned,  are  bound  to  inform  the  superioress.195  There¬ 
fore  no  mention  need  be  made  of  the  fact  that  she  has  gone  or 
that  she  intends  to  go  to  confession  to  a  priest,  who  has  no  special 
faculties  for  the  confessions  of  religious  women.190  Sometimes 
it  may  be  necessary  to  give  this  reason  to  explain  her  delay. 
Even  in  that  case  the  religious  need  mention  no  more  than  the 
fact  that  she  went  to  confession.  Moreover,  it  is,  advisable  that 
she  should  not  say  anything  until  questioned,197  lest  she  estao- 
lish  thereby  a  precedent  which  other  religious  may  find  very  irk¬ 
some. 

By  the  Confessor.  The  only  condition  of  those  mentioned 
above,  which  is  admitted  by  all  as  necessary  for  validity  is  that 
the  priest  be  approved  for  the  confessions  of  women.  All  the 
other  points,  the  motive,  tranquillity  of  conscience,  the  approach, 
by  the  religious ;  that  the  confession  be  made  in  a  church,  ora¬ 
tory  whether  public  or  semi-public  or  in  a  place  legitimately 
destined  for  women *s  confessions  are  all  disputed  by  authorities. 
As  a  result  on  each  of  these  points  there  is  a  positive  and  prob¬ 
able  doubt  of  law.  Therefore  the  confessor  can  with  safety 
choose  the  more  lenient  opinion  to  act  upon,  for  the  Church  in 
these  conditions  will  supply  him  with  the  necessary  jurisdic¬ 
tion.198 

The  superioress  has  no  power  to  correct  abuses  of  this  fac¬ 
ulty  and  even  the  bishop,  although  he  can,  will  not  have  the  op¬ 
portunity  unless  scandal  arises.  Therefore,  the  confessor  is  the 
only  one  wTho  can  correct  this  if  he  discovers  the  lack  of  suffi¬ 
cient  reasons  for  using  the  canon.  He  should  prudentty  tell  the 


195  Blat,  II  pars  II,  n.  585. 

196  Papi,  'Religious  in  Church  Law,  p.  58. 

197  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  230. 

198  Can.  209. 


216 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


religious  to  confess  to  the  ordinary  confessor,  or  make  applica¬ 
tion  to  the  Ordinary  for  a  special  confessor,  lest  the  law  of  the 
unity  of  confessor  be  evaded.199 

3.  Obligations  of  the  Superioress. — The  one  who  has  the 
right  to  grant  or  deny  a  confessor  is  the  one  who  has  appointed 
him  and  not  the  head  of  the  house  whether  a  man  or  woman.200 

(A)  Before  Confession  the  superioress  can  not  in  any  fash¬ 
ion  restrain  or  limit  the  liberty  of  the  religious  in  the  legitimate 
use  of  this  canon,  either  by  prohibition  or  inquiry  as  to  mo¬ 
tives.  When  the  superioress  knows  the  reason  why  the 
religious  intends  to  go  out  and  that  her  request  can  not  be  sat¬ 
isfied  by  calling  the  ordinary  or  a  supplementary  confessor  to 
the  house,  a  true  and  weighty  reason  is  needed  to  refuse  permis¬ 
sion.  Such  a  reason  may  be  the  general  discipline  of  the  com¬ 
munity  but  even  for  such  causes  the  spiritual  welfare  of  the  indi¬ 
vidual  must  not  be  lightly  set  aside.201  She  does  not  have  to 
give  permission  every  time,  but  it  would  be  more  in  conformity 
with  the  spirit  of  the  Church  to  do  so.202  Of  course,  if  going  out 
is  against  the  rules  of  the  community,  the  superioress  is  the  one 
to  judge  whether  in  the  case  an  exception  can  or  must  be 
made.203 

There  is  no  obligation  upon  the  superioress  or  the  Ordinary 
of  offering  occasions  to  use  this  canon  and  much  less  are  they 
bound  to  change  anything  in  the  cloister  discipline  or  the  con¬ 
stitutions.204 

Choupin205  thinks  that  a  superioress  should  not  be  blamed 
who  places  obstacles  in  the  way  of  a  religious,  who  she  knows 
is  the  manifest  victim  of  scruples  and  clearly  abusing  the  pa¬ 
tience  of  the  priest.  But  even  in  this  case  the  superioress  should 


199  Cocchi,  II  pars  II,  n.  43. 

200  s.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Aug.  17,  1891  ad  1;  Malacitana;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F. 

(1907),  n.  1763. 

201  Papi,  op.  cit.,  p.  58;  p.  51. 

202  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  231. 

203  Creusen,  Religieux  et  Keligieuses,  n.  95;  cf.  Treatment  on  Can.  521, 

$  3,  p. 

204  s.  c.  De  Rel.  Dec.  1,  1921,  Reply  to  the  Bishop  of  Innsbruck;  Hilling, 

CIC  Interpretatio,  p.  37  ff. 

205  I’Etat  Religieux,  p.  231. 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience  21 1 

not  interfere,  for  if  such  extensions  are  conceded,  where  will 
their  use  in  practice  cease  ?  The  liberty  of  conscience  of  the  reli¬ 
gious  must  be  safeguarded.  If  she  is  scrupulous  the  confessor, 
trained  for  that  purpose,  is  the  best  judge  of  what  is  to  be  done. 
This  is  in  conformity  with  the  old  law  which  demanded  that  the 
superioress  should  always  send  for  a  supplementary  confessor, 
requested  by  the  religious,  even  though  she  realized  that  the 
need  was  feigned  or  arose  from  scruples  or  any  other  defect  of 
mind  whereby  a  religious  considered  such  a  confessor  to  be 
necessary.206 

After  Confession.  The  superioress  cannot  joke  about  it, 
show  displeasure,  ask  whom  the  religious  spoke  to  or  ridicule  her, 
etc.207 

4.  Obligations  of  the  Ordinary.  He  must  warn  superioresses 
violating  the  prescriptions  of  this  canon.  Upon  repetition  of 
the  offense  he  is  to  depose  them  and  then  immediately  notify  the 
Congregation  for  Religious.208 

The  statement  of  Mahoney  209  “  ...  the  faculties  should 
be  used  in  each  place  according  to  the  interpretation  of  the  Or¬ 
dinary,  or  failing  this,  according  to  the  custom  observed  in  the 
locality.  The  matter  is  still  further  involved  in  dioceses  where 
faculties  for  hearing  confessions  are  restricted  by  a  clause 
excluding  their  use  in  the  semi-public  oratories  of  nuns.  In 
delegating  faculties  the  Ordinary  can  certainly  restrict  them 
in  any  manner  he  pleases.  A  priest  who  holds  faculties  of 
this  kind  cannot  invoke  Can.  522  in  these  oratories,  since  he  is 
not  ‘approved’  for  hearing  confessions  there,”  can  not  be  ad¬ 
mitted. 

It  is  true  that  delegated  jurisdiction  can  be  granted  circum- 


206  g.  c.  EE  et  RR,  Aug.  17,  1891,  Malacitana,  ad  2;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F. 

(1907),  n.  1963. 

207  Cf.  explanation  of  Can.  521  §  3,  where  these  things  are  fully  explained. 

208  Can.  2414.  This  fully  explained  above. 

209  Am.  Ecc.  Eev.  (1926),  LXXIV,  44. 


218 


Confessors  of  Female  Religions 


scribed  by  certain  limits,210  whether  in  regard  to  time,211  per¬ 
sons,212  or  territory,  e.  g.,  a  parish.213  “But,”  to  quote  Cretj- 
sen  214  who  very  ably  takes  issue  on  this  question  with  Ma¬ 
honey,  “if  a  restriction  contradicts  an  article  of  the  Codex,  it 
becomes  ipso  facto  illicit  and  sometimes  even  invalid.  Thus  an 
Ordinary  could  not  delegate  jurisdiction  uniquely  for  lay  peo¬ 
ple  of  the  masculine  sex,  to  the  total  exclusion  of  men  in  reli¬ 
gious  orders.  In  virtue  of  Can.  519,  any  man  in  a  religious 
order  can  occasionally  go  to  a  confessor  ‘approved  of  by  the 
Ordinary  of  the  place.’  If  the  delegation  is  accorded  for 
all  laymen,  the  restriction  is  formally  contrary  to  a  right  ac¬ 
corded  by  the  Codex ;  it  is  therefore  invalid  .... 

“Similarly,  an  Ordinary  cannot  delegate  jurisdiction  for  all 
secular  women,  but  with  the  addition  that  the  confessor  cannot 
hear  the  confession  of  a  nun  who  comes  to  him  within  the  limits 
of  Can.  522. 

“Once  the  jurisdiction  is  given,  the  use  of  it  cannot  be  de¬ 
clared  invalid  in  the  circumstances  when  the  Codex  gives  it 
formal  authorization.  Thus  an  Ordinary  can  not  declare  that 
he  gives  authority  to  hear  women’s  confessions  only  in  churches 
and  not  in  semi-public  oratories.  Once  all  the  conditions  pre¬ 
scribed  by  the  Codex  are  present,  the  faithful  are  using  a  right 
accorded  by  the  Holy  See — a  right  which  the  Ordinaries  can 
not  restrict.” 

Conclusion.  Since  Canon  522  uses  the  words  “in  qualibet 
ecclesia  vel  oratorio  etiam  semi-publico”  the  Ordinary  can  not 
grant  jurisdiction  to  a  confessor  to  hear  the  confessions  of  secu¬ 
lar  women  and  at  the  same  time  restrict  him  from  acting  in 


210  Can.  878  $  1. 

211  “several  of  the  pontifical  documents,  quoted  as  sources  of  Can.  878,  $  1, 

speak  exclusively  of  this  restriction, ' ;  Creusen,  Am.  Ecc.  Rev’  loo. 
cit.,  508. 

212  Can.  522,  875,  876. 

213  Creusen,  loc.  cit. 

214  loc.  cit. 


The  Confessor  for  Peace  of  Conscience 


219 


virtue  of  Canon  522  in  the  semi-public  oratories  of  nuns.  There¬ 
fore  religious  constitutions  215  and  diocesan  statutes,  which  con¬ 
tain  a  contrary  or  restrictive  prescription  lose  all  their  obliga¬ 
tory  force.216 

215  S.  C.  De  Rel.  Normae,  March  6,  1921;  Cap.  IV,  De  excludendis  e  textu 
constitutionum.  (e)  omnia  ea  quae  respiciunt  munera  et  officia 
Episcoporum  et  confessariorum ;  cum  pro  his  non  scribantur  consti- 
tutiones,  sed  pro  religiosis ;  (this  is  not  officially  published)  quoted 
by  Fanfani,  De  Jure  Eeligiosorum,  p.  552,  App.  1;  Am.  Ecc.  Eev. 
(1921),  LXV,  594  fit. 

210  Blat,  Commentarium  in  Textum  CIC  (1919),  II,  de  Personis,  p.  503  tf; 
Boudinhon,  CC,  36,  p.  277;  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  230. 


CHAPTER  XVIII. 


THE  CONFESSOR  OF  THE  SICK. 

A  special  confessor  granted  to  sick  religious  dates  from  the 
time  of  Benedict  XIV.  This  confessor  was  to  be  given  to  nuns 
by  the  Bishop  or  Regular  Superior  to  whom  they  were  respec¬ 
tively  subject.1  Such  confessors  were  conceded  only  in  danger 
of  death  and  this  was  the  basis  for  the  formal  confirmation  of  the 
text  of  this  concession  by  the  “Normae”  of  the  Congregation  of 
Bishops  and  Regulars.2 

The  decree  “Cum  de  Sacramentalibus”  extended  to  both 
nuns  and  religious  of  simple  vows  the  far  greater  concession  by 
which  even  outside  of  the  danger  of  death  they  could,  when 
gravely  sick,  choose  any  confessor  simply  approved  for  confes¬ 
sions.  Special  approbation  for  religious  women  was  not  neces¬ 
sary.  This  right  to  choose  a  confessor  was  to  last  as  long  as  the 
gravity  of  the  sickness  perdured  and  during  that  period  the 
religious  could  make  use  of  it  as  often  as  she  wished.3 

This  has  been  incorporated  in  the  Code  with  a  few  slight 
changes  in  wording  and  an  added  prohibition  to  superioresses 
violating  the  prescriptions  of  the  law. 

Grave  Sickness. 

CANON  523. 

Religiosae  omnes,  cum  graviter  aegrotant,  licet  mor¬ 
tis  periculum  absit,  quemlibet  sacerdotem  ad  mulierum 
confessiones  excipiendas  approbatum,  etsi  non  destina- 
tum  religiosis,  arcessere  pcssunt  eique,  perdurante  gravi 
infirmitate,  quoties  voluerint,  confiteri,  nec  Antistita  po¬ 
test  eas  sive  directe  sive  indirecte  prohibere. 

1  Const.  Pastoralis  Curae,  Aug.  5,  1748,  $5;  FJC  n.  388. 

2  June  28,  1901;  art.  n.  148. 

3  S.  C.  De  Rel.  Feb.  3,  1913;  n.  15;  AAS  V,  64;  cf.  Vermeersch, 

loc.  cit Boudinhon,  loc.  cit. 

[  220  ] 


The  Confessor  of  the  Sick 


221 


Subject  of  the  Law. 

The  words  ‘ ‘ moniales  et  religiosaey}  of  the  law  of  1913  have 
been  designated  in  the  new  terminology  of  the  Code  by  the  words 
tf  religiosae  omnes,”  which  being  generic  have  practically  the 
same  force.  Therefore  this  right  is  granted  to  all  religious 
women,  whether  nuns  or  sisters,  whether  cloistered  or  not, 
whether  of  solemn  or  simple  vows,  whether  of  pontifical  or  epis¬ 
copal  (diocesan)  right.4  Only  what  is  expressly  stated  of  nuns 
must  be  applied  to  them  alone  since  juridically  nuns  are  on  a 
plane  distinct  from  sisters.5  Novices,  by  virtue  of  Canon  566, 
§  1,  and  women  of  pious  societies  living  in  community,  even 
without  vows,  by  reason  of  Canon  675,  are  included  in  this 
right.6 

Gravity  of  Sickness  Required. 

Previous  to  1913,  as  has  been  seen,  danger  of  death  was 
required,  but  this  is  no  longer  necessary.  The  determination 
of  grave  sickness  outside  of  the  danger  of  death  offers  difficulty. 
Therefore  since  the  Code  requires  grave  sickness  it  is  evident 
that  a  cold,  or  a  simple  indisposition,7  old  age,  or  a  general  ex¬ 
haustion  or  weakness,  etc.,  are  not  usually  in  the  sense  of  the 
law,  grave  sicknesses.8  In  all  cases  the  judgment  of  a  physician 
as  to  the  gravity  will  suffice,  whether  the  person  is  confined  to 
bed  or  not.9  It  will  often  be  very  difficult  for  the  confessor 
alone  to  determine  what  constitutes  gravity,  where  it  begins 
and  where  it  ends,  and  when  it  becomes  “periculum  mortis.” 
Canonists  differ  on  this  point  and  to  make  it  clear  the  following 
distinction  is  made. 

A.  Absolutely  Grave  sicknesses  are  those  which  are  very 
weakening  or  of  such  gravity  that  although  the  danger  of  death 


4  Can.  488,  7°;  cf.  Noldin,  De  Sacravientis,  n.  349;  Cocchi,  II  pars  II, 

n.  43. 

5  Fanfani,  De  Jure  Beligiosorum,  n.  7;  n.  137. 

6  Cf.  Commentary  on  Canon  522  p.  ;  Noldin,  loc.  cit.;  Goyeneche, 

CpR,  II  (1921),  p.  14. 

7  Hizette,  Confessions  des  Religieuses,  p.  88. 

8  Salsman,  cf.  Vermeersch,  Per.  VII,  p.  95;  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  223. 

9  Bastien,  op.  cit.,  n.  362. 


222 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


is  not  present  it  is  likely  to  induce  it.10  The  confessor  can  cer¬ 
tainly  act  in  virtue  of  this  canon  in  such  cases.  On  the  other 
hand  to  restrict  the  confessor,  as  Fanfani  11  does,  to  these  cases, 
seems  too  severe.  Every  grave  sickness  which  can  considerably 
weaken  the  strength  of  the  sick  and  give  rise  to  dangerous  com¬ 
plications  would  be  sufficient.  Therefore  pneumonia,  rheuma¬ 
tism  (but  not  merely  pains  concomitant  with  a  chronic  case 
of  this),  pleurisy,  a  bad  case  of  grippe,  etc.12  would  be  serious 
enough  to  warrant  the  use  of  this  canon.  The  fact  that  the  reli¬ 
gious  is  confined  to  bed  for  a  week  or  so  may  be  an  indication  of 
a  grave  sickness.  Yet  it  can  not  be  the  only  norm  for  judging 
nor  a  required  condition  for  the  use  of  this  canon  for  there  are 
grave  sicknesses  in  which  a  person  is  not  confined  to  bed  and,  in 
some  cases,  cannot  lie  down.  On  the  other  hand,  a  religious 
might  be  confined  to  bed  or  her  room  by  reason  of  a  sprain, 
which  would  not  be  sufficient  since  the  Code  says  expressly 
‘  ‘  when  they  are  gravely  sick.  ’  ’ 13 

B.  Relatively  Grave  sicknesses  are  those  which  because  of 
certain  special  circumstances  weaken  the  powers  of  resistance  of 
the  sick.  This  would  be  the  case  in  less  malignant  sicknesses 
which  have  attacked  a  person  of  a  temperament  or  constitution, 
debilitated  by  age,  privations  or  previous  or  concomitant  sick¬ 
ness,  etc.,14  although  these  of  themselves  without  the  added  pres¬ 
ence  of  some  other  illness  would  not  be  sufficient  reason  for  using 
this  canon.15 

In  these  cases  of  relatively  grave  sickness  it  seems  that  the 
confessor  would  be  justified  in  absolving.  The  solution  of  the 
difficulty  seems  to  lay  in  the  word,  “  arcessere.”  This  word 
gives  to  a  gravely  sick  religious  the  right  to  summon  a  confessor 
approved  for  women’s  confessions.  It  implies  upon  her  part 


10  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  137;  Vermeersch,  Per.  VII,  p.  95;  Vermeersch- 

Crensen,  Epit.  n.  596;  Cocchi,  II  pars  II,  n.  43. 

11  Loc.  cit. 

12  Choupin,  L’Etat  Beligieux,  p.  232;  Vermeersch,  loc.  cit. 

13  Creusen,  Beligieux  et  Beligieuses,  n.  96. 

14  Creusen,  loc.  cit. 

is  Vermeersch,  Per.  VII,  p.  95. 


The  Confessor  of  the  Sick 


223 


the  inability  to  go  to  the  confessional  or  any  place  legitimately 
destined  for  that  purpose. 

In  Practice.  It  is  true  that  sickness  is  required  not  only  for 
the  liceity  but  even  the  validity  of  a  confession  made  to  a  priest 
lacking  special  approbation  for  religious,16  for  by  the  fact  that 
he  is  called  by  a  gravely  sick  religious  he  gets  faculties  from  the 
common  law  for  this  case.  Therefore,  if  the  religious  is  not  in 
danger  of  death  but  due  to  sickness  can  not  approach  the  con¬ 
fessional,  the  priest  should  form  a,’  probable  judgment  as  to  the 
gravity.  This  judgment  will  be  sufficient  to  act  upon.  The  con¬ 
fessor  should  remember  that  this  is  a  privilege  and  should  be 
given  a  wide  interpretation  according  to  the  axioms  of  law 
“ Odia  restringi,  et  favores  convenit  ampliari”  17  and  “ Quum  in 
heneficiis  plenissima  sit  interpretation  ’  18  In  order  then  that 
the  religious  can  demand  a  priest  and  that  he  might  acquiesce, 
it  is  not  necessary  to  have  certitude  in  regard  to  the  gravity  of 
the  sickness.  The  appearances  of  a  grave  sickness  and  the  prob¬ 
able  judgment  to  that  effect  suffice.19 

The  priest  need  not  be  too  severe  in  acting  in  virtue  of 
Canon  523.  There  is  a  doubt  of  law  here,  as  is  evident  from  the 
dispute  of  authors  as  to  the  gravity  of  the  disease  required  to 
use  this  canon,  which  is  positive  and  probable.  On  the  other 
hand  the  priest  may  have  a  doubt  as  to  whether  this  particular 
case  is  sufficiently  grave,  i.  e.,  a  doubt  of  fact.  It  he  has  good 
reasons  for  thinking  the  disease  is  grave  he  can  make  the  prob¬ 
able  judgment  in  favor  of  granting  absolution  and  act  upon  it. 
In  both  of  these  cases  of  positive  and  probable  doubt  of  law 
and  of  fact  the  church  will  supply  him  with  the  necessary  juris¬ 
diction.20 

It  is  worthy  of  note  that  a  confessor  acting  in  such  condi¬ 
tions  need  not  worry  about  reservations  of  sins.  Reservations  ol: 

16  Fanfani,  op.  cit.,  n.  137 ;  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  De  Beligiosis,  p.  89. 

17  R.  J.  in  VI°,  Reg.  15. 

18  c.  22,  X,  de  privilegiis,  V,  33;  cf.  Wernz,  Jus  Dccretalium,  I,  n.  161; 

cf.  Canons  68,  50. 

19  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  223;  Hizette,  loc.  cit.;  cf.  Index  to  the  Code  of 

Canon  Law,  the  word  ‘ 1  privilegia.  ’  ’ 

20  Can.  209. 


224 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


sins  ratione  sui  cease  for  these  religious  women,  according  to  the 
prescriptions  of  Canon  900  §  1,  when  they  are  unable  to  leave 
the  house.  Sufficient  reason  for  this  would  be  a  broken  foot, 
etc.21  All  that  is  necessary  for  the  cessation  of  reservation  is 
that  the  illness  prevents  the  religious  from  leaving  the  house. 

Qualifications  of  the  Confessor. 

The  Code  is  stricter  on  this  point  than  the  law  of  1913  22 
which  stated  “  quemlibet  sacerdotem  ad  confessiones  excipiendas 
adprobatumd y  The  Code  requires  that  he  be  approved  for  the 
confessions  of  women.  This  approbation  for  women’s  confes¬ 
sions  is  necessary  for  validity  as  explained  under  Can.  522. 
Faculties  are  commonly  given  in  our  country  simultaneously 
for  the  confessions  of  men  and  women.  On  the  other  hand,  in 
some  countries  of  Europe  faculties  are  first  given  for  men  and 
only  after  some  time  extended  to  include  the  confessions  of 
women.  But  by  the  very  fact  that  a  priest  approved  for  the 
confessions  of  women  is  demanded  by  the  sick  religious,  he  is 
authorized  by  the  Holy  See  to  receive  her  confession.23 

Question. — Canon  522  uses  the  words  “  confessarium  adeat 
ab  Or  dinar  io  loci  pro  mulieribus  approbatum,”  while  the  pres¬ 
ent  canon  states  i(  quemlibet  sacerdotem  ad  mulierum  confessiones 
excipiendas  approbatum.”  Does  the  omission  of  the  phrase 
“ ab  Ordinario  loci”  imply  that  any  priest  approved  by  any 
Ordinary  for  the  confessions  of  women  could  act  in  virtue  of 
this  canon  anywhere  in  the  world  ? 

First  opinion — in  the  negative. 

I. — When  taken  alone,  Canon  523  might  warrant  this  con¬ 
clusion,  but  this  is  a  question  of  approbation,  which  after  the 
Code  is  synonymous  with  jurisdiction.24  But  delegated  juris¬ 
diction  to  receive  the  confessions  of  anyone  whatsoever,  whether 

21  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  II,  n.  179;  Dargin,  Beserved  Cases  according 

to  the  Code  of  Canon  Law ,  p.  33. 

22  n.  15;  AAS  V,  64;  Hizette,  op.  cit.,  p.  89  (Supplement  of  1920), 

p.  14;  Boudinhon,  CC,  36,  p.  413. 

23  Bastien,  Directoire  Canonique,  n.  361;  Choupin,  op.  cit.,  p.  232. 

24  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  De  Beligiosis,  n.  50;  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit., 

II,  n.  143. 


The  Confessor  of  the  Sick 


225 


secular  or  religious  is  conferred  by  the  Ordinary  of  the  place 
in  which  the  confessions  are  heard.25  Therefore,  the  delegation 
of  another  Ordinary  would  not  suffice. 

II.  — A  local  Ordinary  has  Ordinary  jurisdiction  only  for 
his  own  territory,26  therefore  his  delegates  cannot  exercise  their 
jurisdiction  outside  of  his  territory.  For  the  Ordinary  cannot 
grant  more  power  than  he  has. 

III.  — This  would  destroy  the  principle  that,  “the  place  de¬ 
termines  the  act.  ’  ’ 27 

IV.  — Except  in  danger  of  death  the  Church  has  always 
had  stricter  regulations  for  confessions  of  religious  women  than 
for  secular  women.  But  even  lay  women  when  confessing  in 
grave  sickness  outside  of  the  danger  of  death  can  only  confess 
to  a  confessor  approved  by  the  local  Ordinary.  Surely,  then, 
in  this  matter  the  Church  does  not  grant  to  religious  greater 
privileges  than  she  does  to  secular  women. 

This  question  is  not  treated  at  length  by  many  authors  and 
Papi  28  seems  to  be  the  only  one  directly  sponsoring  the  view  just 
mentioned.  He,  at  the  same  time,  grants  probability  to  the 
opposite  view. 

Second  Opinion — which  is  the  better,  considers  approbation 
by  any  local  Ordinary  as  sufficient  for  the  use  of  this  canon. 

I.  The  first  three  arguments  of  the  other  opinion  are  all 
based  upon  the  supposition  that  this  confessor  hears  confessions 
in  virtue  of  the  approbation  of  the  Ordinary  by  whom  he  is 
approved,  i.  e.,  in  virtue  of  delegated  jurisdiction  from  the 
Ordinary.  That  does  not  necessarily  follow  from  the  words  of 
the  canon.  If  that  were  true  one  would  have  to  admit  that 
the  confessor  of  Canon  522,  who  hears  the  confessors  of  religious 
women  when  they  approach  him  for  the  peace  of  their  con¬ 
science,  does  so  in  virtue  of  delegated  jurisdiction  from  the 
local  Ordinary.  This  could  not  be  true,  for  special  approbation 
is  required  for  the  confessions  of  religious.  Therefore,  he  hears 

25  Can.  874,  $1;  Can.  876. 

26  Can.  873,  $  1. 

27  Vermeersch,  Per.  VII,  p.  (20). 

28  Beligious  in  Church  Law,  p.  59.  j  < 


226 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


in  virtue  of  a  supplement  of  jurisdiction  or  at  least  the  pre¬ 
sumed  approbation  for  such  religious  women  granted  by  the 
Cods.  Before  the  Code  under  the  decree  “Cum  de  Sacramen- 
talibus”  of  19  1329  in  regard  to  confessions  of  sick  religious, 
which  could  be  heard  by  a  priest  without  special  approbation, 
authors  considered  that  he  received  some  such  supplement  of 
jurisdiction  or  presumed  approbation.30  Therefore,  since  the 
Code,  and  not  the  local  Ordinary,  extends  the  jurisdiction  in 
these  particular  cases,  it  cannot  be  held  that  a  confessor  cannot 
hear  such  confessions,  because  of  the  fact  that  he  has  not  been 
approved  by  the  local  Ordinary  for  the  confessions  of  women. 
It  is  evident,  then,  that  in  Canon  522,  the  requirement  that  he 
be  approved  for  women ’s  confessions  by  the  local  Ordinary  and 
in  523  that  he  likewise  be  approved  by  an  Ordinary,  are  but 
“conditiones  sine  qua  non,”  without  which  this  extension  of 
jurisdiction  or  presumed  approbation  is  not  granted.  But  it 
cannot  be  inferred  from  the  wording  that  this  canon  and  Canon 
876  are  opposed,  because  of  the  fact  that  that  priest  is  approved 
by  any  Ordinary  in  the  world.  It  seems  to  be  the  intention 
of  the  Holy  See  to  assure  itself  that  the  priest  is  qualified  to 
hear  the  confessions  of  women  in  order  that  he  might 
act  in  virtue  of  Canon  523.  Being  certain  of  that  by  the  fact 
of  approbation  by  any  Ordinary  the  Code  thereby  extends  to 
him  the  faculty  to  hear  the  confessions  of  sick  religious. 

II.  There  is  quite  a  difference  between  the  circumstances 
of  Canons  522  and  523.  In  the  former  the  priest  is  to  hear 
the  confessions  in  a  church  or  a  public  or  semi-public  oratory, 
or  even  in  a  place  legitimately  destined  for  the  confessions  of 
women.  Here  the  place  is  expressly  mentioned  and  therefore 
the  delegation  by  the  Ordinary,  to  receive  the  confessions  of 
women  in  these  places  in  his  diocese,  is  naturally  to  be  ex¬ 
pected.  In  Canon  523,  on  the  other  hand,  the  place  is  not 
mentioned  and  the  faculty  is  given  to  a  religious  who  is  pre¬ 
sumed  to  be  incapable  of  fulfilling  the  requirements  of  the 


29  S.  C.  De  Rel.  Feb.  3,  1913;  AAS  Y,  p.  64. 

30  Boudinhon,  CC,  36,  p.  413;  Vermeersch,  Ter.  VII,  p.  95. 


The  Confessor  of  the  Sick 


227 


place  of  confession.  This,  then,  is  a  direct  privilege  granted 
to  a  sick  individual. 

III.  Canon  18  states  that  in  the  interpretation  of  the  law 
the  words  must  be  accepted  in  their  true  and  proper  significa¬ 
tion  contained  in  the  text  and  the  context.  But  in  Canon  523 
it  is  only  required  that  he  be  approved  by  any  Ordinary  and 
neither  does  the  context  demand  otherwise. 

IV.  If  the  strict  opinion  is  held,  how  can  the  omission  of 
the  words  “ah  Ordinario  loci”  be  explained?  The  mere  asser¬ 
tion  that  Canon  523  should  be  accepted  in  the  same  way  as 
Canon  522,  proves  nothing.  The  very  omission  argues  for  the 
Validity  of  the  more  lenient  opinion  and  the  burden  of  the 
proof  to  the  contrary  rests  upon  its  opponents. 

This  omission  is  positive  and  intentional,  as  is  evident  from 
a  comparison  of  these  canons  with  the  different  parts  of  the 
decree  “Cum  de  Sacramentalibus”  upon  which  they  are  based. 
Number  14  of  this  decree,  speaking  of  the  confessor,  whom  the 
religious  could  approach  when  outside  of  their  house,  states 
*  ‘  conf essionem  peragere  apud  quemvis  Confessarium  pro  ut- 
roque  sexu  adprobatum,”  -while  in  Canon  522  these  words  have 
been  changed  to  read  “confessarium  adeat  ah  Ordinario  loci 
pro  mulieribus  approbatum.”  On  the  other  hand,  number  15 
of  this  decree,  speaking  of  the  confessor  of  the  sick,  contains 
this  wording:  “quemlibet  sacerdotem  ad  confessiones  excipien- 
das  adprobatum,”  which  becomes  in  Canon  523  “quemlibet 
sacerdotem  ad  mulierum  confessiones  excipiendas  approbatum.” 
The  legislator  has  made  changes  in  both  cases  over  the  original 
phraseology.  In  the  first  case  he  has  practically  changed  the 
entire  wording  and  inserted  the  words  “ab  Ordinario  loci,” 
while  in  the  second  case  the  only  change  was  the  insertion  of 
the  word  “mulierum.”  The  legislator  found  it  necessary  to 
use  the  words  “ab  Ordinario  loci”  in  Canon  522  to  convey  the 
meaning  that  he  had  in  mind,  i.  e.,  that  the  confessor  must  be 
approved  by  the  Ordinary  of  the  place  in  which  the  confessions 
are  heard.  Therefore,  he  should  have  used  the  same  or  equiva¬ 
lent  words  in  Canon  523,  if  he  intended  that  exactly  the  same 
meaning  should  be  received  in  both  canons  in  regard  to  the 


228 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


same  point.  It  would  be  imputing  to  the  legislator  a  serious 
lack  of  prudence  to  state,  in  regard  to  two  successive  canons, 
that  the  wording  of  Canon  523  is  just  a  relic  of  the  decree  of 
1913,  when  he  was  so  meticulously  careful  about  the  wording 
of  Canon  522.  This  seems  true,  especially  since  the  conditions 
of  sick  religious  seem  more  urgent  than  those  of  the  religious 
who  would  use  Canon  522.  Why,  the  very  fact  that  the  legis¬ 
lator  studiously  inserted  the  one  word  “mulierum”  in  Canon 
523,  shows  that  this  canon  received  his  close  attention.  The 
only  conclusion,  therefore,  that  can  be  drawn  from  this  omis¬ 
sion,  is  that  the  legislator  intended  it. 

V.  It  is  true  that  before  the  decree  of  1913,  except  in  the 
danger  of  death,  there  were  stricter  regulations  for  the  con¬ 
fessions  of  religious  women  than  for  secular  women.  But  it 
cannot  be  deduced  from  the  fact  that  lay  women,  when  con¬ 
fessing  in  grave  sickness,  outside  of  the  danger  of  death,  can 
confess  only  to  a  priest  approved  by  the  local  Ordinary,  that 
religious  women,  in  the  same  circumstances,  must  also  confess 
to  such  a  priest  approved  by  the  local  Ordinary  for  secular 
women.  This  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  the  decree  of  1913, 
which  was  a  co-ordination  and  revision  of  previous  laws  for  the 
confessors  of  female  religious  permitted  gravely  sick  religious 
to  confess  to  any  priest  approved  for  confessions.  It  did  not 
require  that  this  approbation  be  given  by  the  local  Ordinary.31 
“ Quemlibet  sacerdotem  ad  confessiones  excipiendas  approba - 

turn  ar cesser e  possunt.” 

Therefore,  since  the  present  canon  is  based  on  this  part  of 
the  decree  of  1913,  it  should  be  interpreted  in  the  light  of  the 
old  law.32 

The  extrinsic  probability  of  this  opinion  is  vouched  for 
by  the  fact  that  it  is  supported  by  Brandys33  and  Wouters,34 
while  Mahoney35  sanctions  it  as  a  conclusion  which  can  be 


31  S.  C.  De  Rel.  Feb.  3,  1913,  n.  15;  AAS  V,  64. 

32  Can.  6,  2°,  3°,  4°. 

33  Kirchliches  Bechtsbuch,  p.  158. 

34  Nederlandische  Katholicke  Stemmen  (1918),  p.  200 — Quoted  by  Creuaen, 

Beligievx  et  Beligieuses,  n.  96. 

35  Am.  Ecc.  Be v.  (1926),  LXXIY,  p.  39. 


The  Confessor  of  the  Sick 


229 


drawn  from  the  omission  and  Papi36  claims  that  it  is  not  void 
of  all  probability,  although  he  chooses  the  opposite  opinion. 

Practical  Conclusion — Both  opinions  are  theoretically  prob¬ 
able  and  so  for  the  practical  solution  of  the  individual  case 
the  confessor  can  make  use  of  Canon  209.  The  division  of 
authors,  on  this  point,  gives  rise  to  a  positive  and  probable  doubt 
of  law,  in  which  case  the  confessor  can  act  in  virtue  of  the 
jurisdiction  which  the  Church  supplies  in  such  cases.  A  priest 
of  the  Archdiocese  of  New  York,  therefore,  could  safely  make 
use  of  Canon  523  to  hear  upon  request  the  confession  of  a  sick 
religious  in  the  diocese  of  Monterey  and  Fresno,  California,  in 
virtue  of  the  faculties  to  hear  women’s  confessions  which  he  has 
received  from  the  Archbishop,  of  New  York. 

Manner  of  Obtaining  Such  a  Priest. 

In  the  constitution  “Pastoralis  Curae”  of  Benedict  XIY, 
the  religious  was  to  address  the  regular  superior  or  the  bishop 
with  her  request.37  But  in  the  law  of  1913  and  the  Code  she  is 
given  the  right  to  summon  ( ar  cesser  e )  or  directly  address  the 
confessor  whom  she  desires.  This  should  be  regularly  done  by 
submitting  her  demand  to  the  superioress.  It  is  not,  however, 
“per  se”  necessary  that  this  application  be  made  to  the  su¬ 
perioress.38  The  latter  should  always  receive  such  a  request 
favorably  and  immediately  ask  the  priest  to  come.39  Only  the 
manifest  abuse  upon  the  part  of  the  superioress  would  make  it 
necessary  to  have  recourse  to  the  Ordinary.  It  is  advisable  that 
when  a  sister  is  gravely  sick,  the  superioress  should  ask  her  if 
she  desires  a  special  confessor.  In  fact,  the  Sacred  Congregation 
of  Bishops  and  Regulars  advised  the  Sisters  of  the  Third  Order 
of  St.  Benedict  of  Nancy,  France,  on  the  tenth  of  September, 
1894,  to  insert  this  in  their  constitutions.40 

It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  words  “for  the  peace  of  her  con- 


36  Religious  in  Church  Law,  p.  59. 

37  FJC,  n.  388,  $  5. 

38  Cocchi,  op.  cit.,  II,  pars  II,  n.  43. 

39  Hizette,  Confessiones  des  Religieuses ,  p.  89;  Choupin  L’Etat  Religieux, 

p.  223. 

40  Hizette,  op.  cit.,  p.  87. 


230 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


science/’  are  missing  in  this  canon  and  therefore  the  confession 
is  lawful  if  there  be  no  particular  reason  for  the  request  of  a 
sick  religious. 

Duration  of  the  Confessor’s  Jurisdiction. 

The  confessor’s  jurisdiction  is  co-extensive  with  the  dura¬ 
tion  of  the  grave  sickness,  even  though  there  is  never  the  danger 
of  death.  It  ceases,  however,  at  the  evident  beginning  of  conva¬ 
lescence,41  from  a  grave  disease  or  surgical  operation  if  the  reli¬ 
gious  is  confined  to  bed  only  for  the  purpose  of  healing  the 
wound  of  the  operation.42  There  is  no  restriction  as  to  the 
number  of  times  a  religious  may  use  this  right  while  gravely 
sick.  Moreover,  she  is  not  obliged  to  address  the  same  con¬ 
fessor  every  time,  provided  those  chosen  are  approved  for  the 
confessions  of  women.43  In  regard  to  the  termination  of  the 
sickness,  the  judgment  of  the  physician  can  always  be  followed. 
It  is  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  law  to  interpret  this 
canon  rather  widely. 

Obligation  of  the  Superioress. 

The  superioress,  although  she  can  maintain  the  rule  and 
legitimate  customs,  cannot  in  any  way,  either  directly  or  indi¬ 
rectly,  prohibit  the  use  of  this  privilege.  Violation  of  this 
prohibition  would  make  her  liable  to  a  warning  by  the  bishop 
for  the  first  offense  and  deposition  for  the  second  as  explained 
above  under  Canon  521,  §  3,  Canon  2414.44  Abuses  on  the 
part  of  the  inferiors  are  in  many  ways  possible.  If  a  super¬ 
ioress  judges  the  conduct  of  a  confessor  or  a  penitent,  is  impru¬ 
dent  or  reprehensible,  she  cannot  refuse  to  call  the  confessor, 
but  should  submit  her  observations  to  the  Ordinary.45 

In  Danger  of  Death. 

“A  fortiori 99  from  the  first  moment  of  the  ‘‘article”  of 
death  or  even  the  probable  danger  of  death,  in  virtue  of  the 
concession  <(Pie  admodum”  of  the  Council  of  Trent,46  which 

41  Creusen,  Eeligieux  et  Eeligieuses,  n.  97. 

42  Vermeersch,  Periodica,  VII,  p.  95. 

43  Hizette,  loc.  cit. 

44  II,  cf.  p. 

45  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Aug.  17,  1891,  ad  2;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (1907), 

n.  1763;  Aug.  5,  1904,  ibid.  n.  2204;  cf.  Creusen,  op.  cit.,  n.  97. 


The  Confessor  of  the  Sick 


231 


has  been  incorporated  by  the  Code,  a  simple  priest  without 
faculties  could  absolve  female  religious. 

CANON  882. 

In  periculo  mortis  omnes  sacerdotes,  licet  ad  con- 
fessiones  non  approbati,  valide  et  licite  absolvunt  quos- 
libet  poenitentes  a  quibusvis  peccatis  aut  censuris,  quan- 
tumvis  reservatis  et  notoriis,  etiamsi  praesens  sit  sacerdos 
approbatus,  salvo  praescripto  can.  884,  2252. 

This  periculum  mortis  is  to  be  determined,  as  is  evident 
from  a  reply  of  the  Holy  Office  to  a  former  Bishop  of  Cincin¬ 
nati,  from  the  teachings  of  approved  authors  among  whom  St. 
Alphonsus  is  explicitly  mentioned.47 

This  danger  of  death,  according  to  St.  Alphonsus,48  Bal- 
lerini,49  Aertnys,50  Noldin51  and  Augustine52  and  others 
may  be  not  only  from  an  internal  cause,  such  as  grave  disease, 
but  even  when  it  is  induced  by  an  external  cause.  Thus  there 
can  be  included  in  the  latter  class  the  danger  of  death  arising 
wdiere  the  penitent  could  not  find  another  approved  priest.53 
To  these  might  be  added  the  danger  which  exists  for  a  person 
condemned  to  capital  punishment  and  the  danger  of  becoming 
perpetually  insane. 

All  that  is  required  in  these  cases  is  the  probability  of 
death,  even  though  it  be  more  probable  that  the  religious  will 
live.  In  any  of  these  cases  and  similar  ones,  a  woman  religious 
could  call  for  any  priest  to  hear  her  confessions,  even  if  he 
have  no  faculties  to  hear  confessions,  and  moreover,  even  though 

45  Scss.  XIV,  ch.  7,  Verumtamen  pie  admodum,  ne  hac  ipsa  occasione 
aliquis  per  eat,  in  eadem  ecclesia  Dei  custoditum  semper  fuit  ut  nulla 
sit  reservatio  in  articulo  mortis ;  atque  ideo  omnes  sacerdotes  quos- 
libet  poenitentes  a  quibusvis  peccatis  et  censuris  absolvere  possunt. 
cf.  Mansi,  33,  p.  96. 

47  s.  Officii,  Sept.  13,  1859,  ad.  1.  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  n.  1181  (1907). 

48  Theol.  Mor.  VI,  n.  560. 

49  Opus  Theol.  Mor.,  Tract.  X,  de  Poenitentia,  n.  363  (ed.  1900). 

50  Theol.  Mor.,  II,  n.  223. 

51  De  Sccramentis,  n.  345. 

52  A  Commentary  on  Canon  Law,  IV,  p.  287. 

53  Noldin,  loc.  cit.  i 


232 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


an  approved  priest  endowed  with  special  jurisdiction  to  hear 
her  confession  as  a  religious,  is  present 

Outside  of  a  case  of  necessity  the  “absolutio  complicis” 
would  be  illicit  on  the  part  of  the  confessor.54  A  religious  can, 
in  danger  of  death,  be  absolved  by  a  priest  not  having  special 
faculties,  from  a  censure  reserved  “ ab  homine”  or  “specialis- 
simo  modo”  to  the  Holy  See.  In  this  case  the  penitent  is  bound 
after  recovery  by  the  obligation  of  recurring,  under  pain  of  re- 
incidence  of  the  same  censure  specifically,  to  him  who  imposed 
the  censure  if  “ab  homine”  and  to  the  Sacred  Penitentiary  or 
the  bishop  or  in  fact  anyone  else  endowed  with  the  required 
faculty,  for  censures  imposed  “a  jure.”  The  penitent  must 
then  observe  their  commands.55 


54  Can.  884. 

55  Can.  2252. 


CHAPTER  XIX. 


ENTRANCE  OF  THE  CLOISTER  OF  NUNS  BY  THE 

CONFESSOR. 

During  the  eighth  century,  regulations,  in  regard  to  the  en¬ 
trance  of  the  cloister  by  the  priest,  were  laid  down.  Yet  to  the 
ninth  century  and  the  period  of  Charlemagne  as  Emperor  of  the 
Holy  Roman  Empire  is  owed  most  of  the  early  legislation  on 
the  entrance  of  the  cloister.1  These  regulations  were  not  defi- 
nitized  until  the  Council  of  Aix-la-Chapelle  in  816,  in  the  time 
of  Pope  Stephen  V.2  This  council  stated  that  the  confessor 
could  hear  the  confessions  of  nuns  only  in  the  church  and  in 
the  presence  of  witnesses,  i.  e.,  generally  a  deacon  and  a  sub¬ 
deacon,  whom  he  brought  with  him.  The  latter  were  to  be  out 
of  hearing  and  yet  capable  of  bearing  witness  to  the  conduct 
of  the  confessor  and  the  nun.  The  confessions  of  the  sick,  how¬ 
ever,  could  be  heard  in  any  house  whatsoever,  but  with  the  same 
requirement  in  regard  to  witnesses.  This  was  incorporated  by 
many  local  councils3  and  religious  rules,  as  is  evidenced  in  that 
of  the  Order  of  Fontevrault.4  This  rule  would  not  permit  the 
hearing  of  the  confessions  of  sick  nuns  at  their  bedside,  but 


1  Statuta  S.  Bonifacii  Archiepiscopi  Mogunt.,  c.  14;  cf.  Hefele,  Con- 

ciliengeschicte  III,  584;  Cone.  Foriorliense  (791),  c.  12;  S.  S.  Cone. 
(Labbeus  et  Cassertius-edition,  Florence  1767)  p.  850;  Cone. 
Turonense,  111  (813),  c.  29,  cf.  Mansi,  XIV,  p.  87;  Cone.  Cabilonense 
II  (813),  c.  60;  Mansi,  XIV,  p.  106;  Arlatense  VI  (813),  c.  7, 
Mansi,  XIV,  60;  cf.  Schaaf,  The  Cloister,  p.  42.  (This  is  the 
best  work  that  we  know  of  in  english  on  the  canonical  regulations 
for  the  cloister.) 

2  Cone.  Aquisgranense,  lib.  II,  c.  27,  Mansi,  XIV  p.  276;  Capitularia 

Begum  Francorum  ( circa  837)  Additio  2;  Mansi  XVII  bis,  1141. 

3  Cone.  Parisiense  VI,  c.  46;  Mansi  XIV,  565;  Harduin,  IV,  1323;  cf. 

Hefele,  Conciliengeschicte  IV,  p.  15,  16. 

4  Begulae  Sanctimonialium  Fontis  Ebraldi,  Vetusta  Statuta,  n.  16,  MPL, 

CLXII,  1086;  cf.  Lea,  A  History  of  Auricular  Confession,  I,  201. 

[  233  ] 


234 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


demanded  that  they  be  brought  into  the  chapel.  The  nuns  of 
the  Gilbertine  Order  (1139), 5  on  the  other  hand,  had  a  con¬ 
fessional  of  the  modern  form,  i.  e.,  in  the  cloister  wall,  so  that 
the  confessor  would  not  have  to  enter  the  cloister.  Confessions 
of  these  nuns  were  heard  while  two  discreet  nuns  stood  at  a 
distance  from  the  “confessional  window”  and  watched  the  con¬ 
duct  of  the  penitent. 

The  Congregation  of  the  Council,  although  it  permitted  the 
entrance  of  the  confessor  to  the  sick  room,  required  that  two 
nuns  should  accompany  him  and  remain  at  the  door  of  the 
cell,  which  was  to  be  left  open.6 

It  was  left  to  Alexander  VII  in  his  constitution  “Felici” 
October  20,  16647  to  define  the  law  more  clearly.  He  permitted 
the  ordinary  and  extraordinary  confessors  to  enter  the  cloister 
to  administer  the  Sacraments  of  Penance,  the  Holy  Eucharist 
and  Extreme  Unction  to  sick  nuns  or  others  living  there,  and  also 
to  pray  over  the  dying.  Yet  the  confessor  was  never  to  enter 
without  a  companion  of  exemplary  life  and  mature  age,  who 
was  always  to  remain  in  that  part  of  the  monastery  where  he 
could  see  the  confessor  and  be  seen  by  him.8 

This  law  applied  only  to  the  regular  confessor,  but  was 
extended  during  the  next  century  to  other  confessors.9  It  was 
from  these  prescriptions  and  others  similar  to  these  that  our 
present  canon  has  developed. 

CANON  600. 

Intra  monialium  clausuram  nemo,  cuiusvis  generis, 
conditionis,  sexus,  aetatis  admittatur  sine  Sanctae  Sedis 
licentia,  exceptis  personis  quae  sequuntur: 

2°.  Confessarius  vel  qui  eius  vices  gerit  potest,  cum 
debitis  cautelis,  ingredi  clausuram  ad  ministranda  Sacra- 
menta  infirmis  aut  ad  assistendum  morientibus. 

5  Leaula e  Ordinis  Sempringensis,  Ch.  V ;  Holsten,  Codex  Legularum, 

II,  471. 

6  Pellizarius,  Tractatio  de  Monialibus,  X,  n.  174. 

7  FJC  n.  240. 

8  Pellizarius,  op.  cit.,  n.  218. 

9  Benedict  XIV,  Opera  Omnia,  XIII,  264;  cf.  Schaaf,  op.  cit.,  p.  117; 

Bastien,  Directoire  Canonique,  n.  369. 


Entrance  of  the  Cloister  of  Nuns  by  the  Confessor  235 

Confessors  Who  Can  Enter  the  Cloister. 

I.  To  Hear  Confessions  of  the  Sick . 

The  ordinary  confessor  is  he  who, has  the  special  jurisdic¬ 
tion  per  se  required  to  hear  the  confessions  of  nuns.10  The  con¬ 
fessor  referred  to  in  this  canon  then,  is  the  ordinary  confessor 
of  the  community.* 11  But  the  extraordinary  should  take  care 
of  these  things  at  the  time  of  performing  his  jOffice  if  the  sick 
nun  does  not  ask  for  the  ordinary,  supplementary  or  other 
confessors.12  The  substitute  or  vice-gerent  would  be  not  only 
the  priest  appointed  by  the  bishop  to  supply  his  absence  during 
sickness,  etc.,13  but  all  confessors  of  religious  (except  the  one 
to  whom  the  religious  approaches  under  Canon  522  for  her 
peace  of  conscience),  who  have  the  right  to  enter  the  cloister  at 
the  request  of  the  sick  nun  to  hear  her  confession.  They  include 
1 — The  special  confessor  appointed  by  the  local  Ordinary  for  an 
individual  nun  at  her  request  (Can.  520,  §  2).  2 — The  supple¬ 
mentary  confessors,  residents  of  the  vicinity  (called  “ adjuncti” 
by  the  Instruction  of  1924),  appointed  by  the  local  Ordinary  as 
those  to  whom  the  nuns  can  have  recourse  in  particular  cases 
without  applying  to  the  Ordinary  (Can.  521,  §  2).  3 — Any 

confessor  approved  to  hear  confessions  of  women  by  a  local 
Ordinary,  whom  a  gravely  sick  nun  requests,  according  to 
Canon  523,  although  she  is  not  in  danger  of  death.14  4 — In 
danger  of  death  any  priest  whatsoever,  even  though  he  has  no 
faculties  to  hear  confessions.15  5 — The  jubilee  confessor,  ap¬ 
proved  for  both  sexes,  whom  the  nun  requests  during  the  first 
year  of  the  jubilee,  while  it  is  reserved  to  the  Eternal  city,16  or 

10  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  n.  706;  Schafer,  Ordensrecht,  p.  252. 

11  S.  C.  De  Rel.  Instructio  de  Clausura,  III,  2°,  f;  Feb.  6,  1924;  AAS 

XVI,  95;  cf.  Can.  520,  $  1. 

12  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Dec.  16,  1836;  cf.  Mothon,  Traite  de  la  Confession 

Sacramentelle,  p.  98. 

13  Schaaf,  op.  cit.,  p.  117 ;  Brandys,  Kirchliches  Beclits'buch,  n.  73,  p.  67. 

14  S.  C.  De  Rel.,  Feb.  6,  1924.  Instructio  de  Clausura,  III,  2°,  g;  AAS 

XVI,  99;  cf.  II  Monitore  Ecclesiastico  (1924),  XXXVI,  70. 

15  Can.  882. 

io  Pius  XI,  Const.  <(Apostolico  munere,”  July  30,  1924;  AAS  (1924), 
XVI,  317  ff. 


236 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


when  it  is  extended  to  the  world  during  the  second  year  17  can 
enter  the  cloister.  This  can  happen  twice  each  year,  for  the 
nun  can  gain  the  indulgence  once  for  the  living  and  once  for  the 
dead.18  6 — Bishops  also  have  the  right  of  entering  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  hearing  the  confession  of  a  sick  nun  upon  her  request 
and  even  if  that  be  only  out  of  mere  devotion.19  Any  of  these 
confessors  can  enter  the  cloister  to  hear  the  confession  of  a  nun, 
even  if  the  ordinary  confessor  or  his  substitute  is  at  hand  20  and 
as  often  a£  she  asks  for  him.21  Outside  of  these  cases  if  a  nun 
is  confined  to  her  room,  but  is  not  gravely  sick  only  the  ordinary, 
extraordinary  or  supplementary  confessor  can  enter  to  hear  her 
confession.22 

II.  For  the  Administration  of  the  Other  Sacraments. 

The  administration  of  Communion,  both  as  Viaticum  and 
out  of  devotion,  and  of  Extreme  Unction,  together  with  the 
assisting  of  the  dying,  is  reserved  by  Canon  514,  §  2,  to  the 
ordinary  confessor  or  his  substitute,23  even  if  one  of  the  other 
confessors  mentioned  above  has  heard  the  confession.  If  the 
administration  of  the  last  sacraments  is  to  be  concomitant  with 
that  of  confession,  they  may  permit  this  administration  to  the 
other  confessors.  Although  this  seems  advisable,  yet  the  ordi¬ 
nary  confessor  can  rightfully  insist  upon  attending  to  these 
duties  personally.24  In  the  absence  of  the  ordinary  confessor 
or  his  substitute,  any  of  the  above  enumerated  priests  can,  after 
confession,  administer  the  other  sacraments  or  even  if  the  nun’s 


17  Pius  XI,  Const.  “  Servatoris  Jesu  Christi,”  Dec.  25,  1925;  AAS 

XVII,  p.  615  ff. 

18  Intro,  to  Const.  Servatoris. 

19  S.  C.  Cone,  in  Mazarien,  May  10,  1727,  ad.  4;  Benedict  XIV,  Opera 

Omnia,  XIII,  q.  DLI,  p.  263-265. 

20  Schaaf,  op.  cit.,  p.  118;  ef.  Papi,  Religious  in  Church  Law,  p.  117; 

Blat,  II,  n.  675,  668. 

21  Instructio  de  Clausura  (1924),  III,  2°,  g.  AAS  XVI,  99;  cf.  Creusen, 

op.  cit.,  n.  234. 

22  Creusen,  op.  cit.,  n.  234. 

23  Instructio  de  Clausura  (1924),  III,  2°,  f;  AAS  XVI,  p.  99. 

2-*  Schaaf,  op.  cit.,  p.  118;  Papi,  op.  cit.,  p.  117;  Blat,  II,  n.  675. 


Entrance  of  the  Cloister  of,  Nuns  by  the  Confessor  237 

confession  is  not  to  be  heard.25  In  the  same  circumstances 
Communion  of  devotion  can  be  brought  to  sick  nuns  by  the 
chaplain  (Canon  529)  and  in  the  event  of  his  concomitant 
absence  by  any  priest  with  the  permission  of  the  bishop.  The 
bishop  can  authorize  the  superioress  to  designate  a  priest  and 
grant  the  latter  permission  in  his  name.26 

III.  Required  Precautions. 

The  Code  does  not  mention  these  and  therefore  they  must 
be  gathered  from  the  Instruction  on  the  Cloister,  given  by  the 
Congregation  for  Religious  on  February  6,  192427  and  the 
anterior  legislation,  all  the  points  of  which  the  Code  has  not 
renewed,  but  which  may  serve  as  a  guide.28 

1.  — For  the  administration  of  Holy  Communion — The  de¬ 
cree  of  the  Congregation  for  Religious  of  September  1,  191229 
must  be  observed,  i.  e.,  the  priest  should  be  accompanied  from 
the  time  that  he  enters  the  cloister  until  he  leaves  by  four 
elderly  nuns}  if  that  is  possible.  Regulars  no  longer  are  bound 
to  have  a  companion  of  their  own  order.30 

2.  — For  hearing  confessions — Two  nuns  should  accompany 
the  confessor  to  the  cell  of  the  sick  nun  and  wait  at  the  open 
door  of  the  cell,  but  out  of  earshot,  while  he  hears  the  con¬ 
fession,  and  then  accompany  him  back  to  the  monastery  door.31 

3.  — For  the  administration  of  the  last  Sacraments  and  to 


25  S.  C.  Cone,  in  Mazarien.  May  10,  1727 ;  Benedict  XIV,  Opera  Omnia, 

XIII,  263-265;  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  in  Fossanen,  Feb.  1743,  Bizzarri, 
329  ff;  cf.  Ferraris,  v.  Monialis,  V,  82;  Leitner,  Handbuch  ( Dritte 
Lieferung ,  Das  Ordensrecht),  337;  Blat,  loc.  cit.;  Bastien,  Directoire 
Canonique,  n.  369;  Pellizarius,  op.  cit.,  n.  217. 

26  S.  C.  De  Rel.  Sept.  1,  1912,  AAS  IV,  625-626;  Instructio  de  Clausura, 

Feb.  6,  1924  III,  2°,  h,  AAS  XVI,  99;  Blat,  II,  n.  675;  Leitner, 
op.  cit.,  p.  336;  Creusen,  op.  cit.,  n.  234;  Schafer,  Ordensrecht,  p.  252, 
Papi,  op.  cit.,  p.  117 ;  Schaaf,  op.  cit.,  p.  118  ff. 

27  AAS  XVI,  96  ff. 

28  Augustine,  op.  cit.,  Ill,  316;  Blat,  II  pars  II,  n.  588-599;  Leitner,  loo. 

cit.;  Papi,  op.  cit.,  p.  118. 

29  AAS  IV,  625-626. 

30  S.  C.  De  Rel.  Instructio  de  Clausura,  Feb.  6,  1924,  III,  2®,  h;  AAS 

XVI,  99,  cf.  Schaaf,  op.  cit.,  p.  119;  Blat,  op.  cit.,  n.  675;  Leitner, 
op.  cit.,  p.  336;  Schafer,  Ordensrecht,  p.  252. 

31  ibid.  Ill,  2°,  i. 


238 


Confessors  of  Female  Religious 


assist  the  dying — The  Instruction  of  1924  makes  no  specific 
regulations  for  these  cases  as  for  the  administration  of  the 
Eucharist  and  the  hearing  of  confessions.  Speaking  of  all 
these  offices  together,  it  states,  that  immediately  after  his  min¬ 
istry  is  completed,  the  priest  should  leave  the  monastery.82 
Therefore,  for  those  offices  of  administering  the  last  Sacra¬ 
ments  and  assisting  the  dying,  the  prescriptions  of  the  old  law 
will  have  to  be  applied. 

The  confessor  can  enter  the  cloister  to  assist  dying  nuns 
during  the  night  and  the  bishop  can  grant  permission  for  that 
purpose  even  to  the  extraordinary  confessor.33 

The  custom  of  confessors,  whether  secular  or  regular,  of 
staying  within  the  enclosure  over  night,  if  in  the  opinion  of 
the  physician  a  nun  is  about  to  die,  can  be  tolerated.34  In 
protracted  agony  of  death  the  bishop  can,  if  he  judges  it  pru¬ 
dent,  tolerate  the  custom  of  a  chaplain  relieving  the  confessor 
and  he  in  turn  being  relieved  by  a  third  priest.35  But  only 
in  cases  of  a  long  stay  or  necessity  are  the  confessors  permitted 
to  eat  within  the  enclosure.36  The  confessor  njuet  always  be 
vested  in  surplice  and  stole  when  he  enters  the  cloister.37 

Reasons  for  Entrance. 

1.  Sufficient  reason — would  be  only  to  administer  sacra¬ 
ments  to  sick  and  assist  the  dying.38  By  the  sick  are  meant  not 

32  ibid.  Ill,  2°,  k. 

33  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  in  Algaren,  July  1736,  Bizzarri,  347-348;  Sept.  13, 

1583,  Ferraris,  v.  Monialis,  V,  57;  Lucidi,  IT,  159;  cf.  Schaaf, 
loc.  cit. 

34  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  in  Aesina,  May  29,  1846,  ad.  1;  Bizzarri,  546  ff; 

Lucidi,  De  Visitatione  SS.  Liminum,  II,  158;  Pennachi,  I,  730,  731; 
says  that  to  tolerate  this  (1),  the  custom  must  be  of  long  standing 
(2)  no  scandal  (3)  the  abolition  of  this  custom  would  give  rise  to 
suspicions;  cf.  Schaaf,  op.  cit.,  p.  120. 

35  g.  C.  EE  et  RR,  in  Fossanen,  Feb.  1743,  Bizzarri,  329  tf;  Pennachi, 

I,  729;  Lucidi,  II,  159. 

36  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Sept.  13,  1582;  Nones  of  May,  1590;  Lucidi,  II,  160; 

in  Pistorien  et  Praten ,  March  2,  1855,  Lucidi,  ibid.;  Pennachi,  I,  732. 

87  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  in  Cajetana ,  Jan.  29,  1627;  Lucien,  March  28,  1589; 
Dec.  22,  1602 ;  *cf.  Ferraris,  v.  Monialis,  V,  64;  Lucidi,  II,  159; 
Bastien,  op.  cit.,  n.  369;  Schaaf,  loc.  cit. 

38  Alexander,  VII,  Const.  Felici,  $5,  1.  c. ;  S.  C.  Cone.  Mazzara,  May  10, 
1727;  Benedict  XIV,  Opera  Omnia  XIII  263-65. 


Entrance  of  the  Cloister  of>  Nuns  by  the  Confessor  239 

only  those  nuns  who  are  in  danger  of  death,  but  even  those  who 
cannot  go  to  the  confessional  and  the  Communion  window.39 

The  term  includes  nuns,  postulants,  novices  and  all  others 
lawfully  residing  within  the  convent,  e.  g.,  pupils,  who  are  sick.40 
Reverence  to  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  howTever,  taking  precedence 
over  the  cloister  rule,  permits  his  entrance  to  pick  up  a  conse¬ 
crated  host  that  has  fallen  through  the  Communion  window.41 

2.  Insufficient  Reasons  would  be  as  follows:  (1)  to  cele¬ 
brate  Mass;42  (2)  to  exorcise  a  nun;43  (3)  to  hear  the  confession 
of  a  nun  who  can  approach  the  confessional  window ;  or  on  the 
pretext  of  accompanying  doctors  and  laborers,  etc.;44  (4)  for 
the  burial  of  a  nun;45  (5)  to  give  spiritual  consolation  to  the 
sick  unless  he  administers  a  sacrament,46  except  where  in  indivi¬ 
dual  cases  such  a  custom  is  tolerated  by  the  Ordinary.47  (6) 
Lately  toleration  was  extended  to  entrance  on  like  occasions  of 
other  priests,  both  regular  and  secular,  besides  the  confessor.48 
The  prohibition  to  confessors  of  entering  to  bless  the  cells  of 


39  S.  C.  de  Rel.  Sept.  1,  1912;  AAS,  IY,  625-626;  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Sept. 

13,  1583;  Ferraris,  v.  Moniales,  58;  Pellizarius,  op.  cit.  Cap.  X,  n. 
220;  Blat,  n.  675,  p.  669. 

40  can.  514,  §§  1,  2;  Alexander  VII,  Const.  Felici,  $  5,  loc.  cit.;  Augustine, 

III,  141-145;  Biederlack-Fuhrich,  op.  cit.,  90;  Fanfani,  op.  cit., 
53-54;  Blat,  loc.  cit. 

41  Ferraris,  v.  Moniales,  V.  63;  Pennachi  I,  732;  Lucidi  II,  159. 

42  g.  C.  EE  et  RR  in  Lucianen,  et  Pestor,  July  16,  1685;  In  Mantuorin, 

June  13,  1591;  In  Bononien,  Jan.  2,  1601;  Ferraris,  loc.  cit.,  V.  62; 
Lucidi,  II,  159;  Pennachi  I,  732. 

43  g.  C.  EE  et  RR,  July  1,  1616;  Ferraris,  v.  Monialis,  V,  61;  Pennachi, 

I,  732;  Lucidi,  II,  159;  cf.  Schaaf,  op.  cit.,  p.  122. 

44  g.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Sept.  13,  1583,  Ferraris,  v.  Monialis,  Y,  59;  Lucidi, 

II,  159;  Pellizarius,  op.  cit.,  Cap.  X,  n.  220. 

45  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  March  10,  1577;  ASS  XXXVII,  441,  ad  calcem;  in 

Una  Dominican,  June  30,  1852;  Ulissiponen,  Aug.  11,  1610;  Lucidi, 
II,  158. 

46  s.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Sept.  17,  1779,  June  1,  1841;  cf.  Mothon,  Traite  de  la 

Confession  Sacramentelle,  p.  96. 

47  g.  C.  EE  et  RR,  in  Pestorien  et  Pratesi,  March  2,  1855,  ASS,  XXVII, 

441;  in  Bononien,  Aug.  20,  1599;  Ferraris  v.  Monialis  V,  52,  53; 
Lucidi,  II,  158;  Pennachi  I,  732. 

48  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  in  Zamoren,  Apr.  24,  1903,  ASS,  XXXVI,  203-205; 

Ursulinarium,  Nov.  12,  1904,  ASS,  XXXVII,  441-442.  These  no 
longer  contain  the  prohibition  for  them  to  take  refreshment  within 
the  cloister,  Pennachi,  I,  732. 

49  g.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Sept.  4,  1596,  Ferraris  v.  Moniales,  V,  60. 


240  Confessors  of  Female  Religious 

nuns  admits  of  toleration  of  a  contrary  custom  by  permission 
of  the  Ordinary49  to  be  asked  each  time.50 

Penalty  for  Violation  of  a  Cloister. 

Those  violating  the  cloister  of  nuns  incur  “ipso  facto”  an 
excommunication  simply  reserved  to  Holy  See,  if  they  enter 
without  legitimate  license  and  those  introducing  or  admitting 
them.  If  they  are  clerics,  they  are  also  to  be  suspended  for  a 
length  of  time  determined  by  the  Ordinary,  according  to  the 
gravity  of  the  blame.51 


50  Pennachi,  I,  732;  Lucidi,  II,  159. 

51  Can.  2342,  1*. 


APPENDICES. 


APPLYING  TO  BOTH  MALE  AND  FEMALE  RELIGIOUS. 

Appendix  I. 

Frequency  of  Confession.  • 

During  the  first  centuries  of  the  Church  the  practice  of 
weekly  confession  existed  both  in  the  East 1  and  the  West.2 
Previous  to  the  Council  of  Trent,  there  was  no  definite  rule  in 
regard  to  the  frequency  with  which  religious  were  to  approach 
the  Sacrament  of  Penance.  This  lack  of  uniformity  continued 
down  through  the  centuries  and  the  statutes  of  local  bishops 
and  councils  and  religious  rules  sometimes  prescribe  confession 
only  at  death,3  sometimes  annually,4  or  monthly.5  Clement 
V  in  the  Council  of  Vienna  (1311-1312), 6  made  monthly  con¬ 
fession  obligatory  for  all  monks. 

The  majority  of  religious  rules  and  councils,  however,  had 
the  precept  of  weekly  confession.7 

The  Council  of  Trent  striving  to  bring  about  uniformity 
in  this  matter  for  nuns,  accepted  the  same  rule  as  the  Council 
of  Vienna  above  mentioned  and  commanded  bishops  and  regu¬ 
lar  superiors  to  insert  in  the  constitutions  of  their  nuns  the 
rule  of  monthly  confession.8 

Weekly  confession — The  prescription  of  the  Council  of 
Trent  was  the  normal  rule  from  that  time  on  as  enforced  by  the 

1  The  Oriental  monks  of  the  4th,  5th  and  6th  centuries  habitually  con¬ 

fessed  every  seven  days  and  were  obliged  not  to  have  an  interval 
of  more  than  fifteen  days  between  two  successive  confessions,  cf. 
Marin,  Les  Moines  de  Constantinople,  95,  96. 

2  The  rule  of  the  monastery  of  Kilros  (Culros)  Scotland  (about  448), 

which  was  observed  by  these  monks,  as  Holsten  says,  from  the  be¬ 
ginning  of  Christianity,  .prescribed  confession  to  their  spiritual 
father  every  Sunday,  cf.  Holsten,  Codex  Begularum,  II,  65;  index 
pp.  XXXI. 

3  The  Order  of  Fontevrault  (about  1116) ;  Praecepta  recte  vivendi,  ch. 

XXII;  MPL  CLXII,  1084;  Rule  of  the  Grandmontines,  approved 

by  Adrian  IV  1150)  ;  cf.  Holsten,  op.  cit.,  Ill,  p.  307,  n.  5,  30. 

[241] 


242 


Appendix 


Pontiffs9  and  the  Congregation  of  Bishops  and  Regulars,10 
until  the  decree  “Singulari”  of  March  27,  189611  prescribed 
weekly  confession  for  sisters  of  simple  vows  engaged  in  col¬ 
lecting  alms.  This  has  become  the  basis  of  our  present  legisla¬ 
tion  which  holds  for  both  male  and  female  religious.  The 
“Normae”  of  190112  placed  the  obligation  on  the  religious,  but 
poses  it  upon  the  superiors.13 

The  weekly  confession,  which  is  now  a  matter  of  law  in 
Canon  595,  §  1,  Gurent  Superiores  ut  omnes  religiosi:  3°  Ad 
poenitentiae  sacramentum  semel  saltern  in  hebdomada  accedant. 
The  superiors  are  to  see  to  it  that  their  religious  observe  these 
rules.  This  canon  then  is  directed  towards  superiors  primarily, 
but  no  real  obligation  can  be  derived  from  it  and  hence,  the 
superiors  cannot  force  religious  to  go  by  punishments  or  cen¬ 
sures.14 


4  St.  Egbert,  Bishop  of  York,  England  (732-73)  commanded  clerics  in 

monasteries  to  confess  at  least  within  the  twelve  days  before 
Christmas,  claiming  that  this  was  the  custom  from  the  time  of 
Pope  Vitalian,  i.  e.,  570;  cf.  Egberti  Dialogus,  Interr.  XVI;  Mansi 
XII;  Hadden  and  Stubbs,  Councils  and  Ecclesiastical  Documents  re¬ 
lating  to  Great  Britian  and  Ireland,  III,  413;  MPL,  LXXXIX,  442; 
cf.  Concilium  Lateranense  IV,  cap.  XXI,  cf.  Mansi  XII,  1008,  which 
made  annual  confession  a  matter  of  obligation  for  all  the  faithful. 

5  Synodus  Londoniensis  (1268)  n.  54;  Mansi  XXIII,  1258;  Hefele,  VI, 

p.  112. 

6  c.  1,  III,  ((Ne  in  agro,”  10,  in  Clem. 

7  St.  Chrodegang,  Bishop  of  Metz  (742-766),  compelled  his  clergy  to 

live  in  community  giving  them  the  name  of  Canons  Begular;  “  Mon- 
achi  in  unaquoque  Sabbato  confessionem  facient,  cum  bona  voluntate, 
Episcopo  aut  priori  suo Harduin,  op.  cit.,  IV,  1187 ;  MPL  LXXXIX, 
442;  Rule  of  the  Cistercians  (founded  1092)  prescribed  weekly 
confession  for  both  abbots  and  monks;  cf.  Liber  Institutorum  Cap- 
ituli  Generalis  Ordinis  Cisterciensis,  Dist.  6,  cap.  14;  Martene, 
Begula  Benedicti  Commentata,  Commentary  MPL  XLVI,  697;  The 
Rule  of  the  Carthusian  Order,  cf.  Consuetudines  Guigonis  ( Stat . 
cap.  7)  Martene;  op.  cit.,  MPL,  LXVI,  696. 

8  Sess.  XXV,  De  Begularibus'  c.  10;  Ehses,  Concilium  Tridentinum,  9,  p. 

1082. 

9  Clement  VIII,  Decree  to  Order  of  Servites,  July  25,  1599,  “  Nullus 

omnino,”  §25;  FJC,  187. 

10  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Encycl.  Lit.  Episcopis  Italiae,  Oct.  9,  1622;  Bizzarri, 

p.  374;  Aug.  22,  1814  n.  XI;  Bizzarri,  p.  44. 

11  N.  8;  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (1907),  n.  1924.  “  ...  in  singulis  hebdommadis 

Poenitentiae  et  Eucharistiae  sacramentis  reficiantur.” 

12  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  June  28,  1901. 

13  Battandier,  n.  247,  p.  207. 

14  Blat,  II,  n.  62,  p.  80  81,  Chelodi,  Jus  de  Personis,  1922,  n.  114.  p. 

J82,  note  (1).  '  *  ' 


Frequency  of  Confession 


243 


Then  can,  however,  enforce  the  constitutions  by  penal  rem¬ 
edies  (Canon  2306  ft.)  At  the  most,  the  superior  can  only  see 
to  it  that  the  religious  appears  at  the  confessional,  that  is, 
approaches  it.  He  cannot  require  that  the  subjects  make  con¬ 
fession.15  Augustine  states  that  the  custom  of  going  to  con¬ 
fession  every  other  week  in  large  communities  can  be  tolerated.16 
But  this  cannot  be  conceded,  for  Canons  518,  §  1,  520,  §  1  re¬ 
quire  that  there  should  be  confessors  appointed  sufficient  in 
number  to  meet  the  demands  of  the  community  in  the  observ¬ 
ance  of  Canon  595.  The  canon  confirms  indirectly  for  inferiors 
the  obligation  of  the  rule,  but  imposes  no  new  obligation  under 
pain  of  sin.17 

The  superiors  then  have  the  obligation  of  giving  their  sub¬ 
jects  (1)  the  time  and  means  to  make  at  least  weekly  confession; 
(2)  to  notify  the  Ordinary  if  the  ordinary  confessor  refuses 
or  neglects  to  offer  himself  once  a  week  for  the  disposition  of 
the  penitents;  (3)  to  exercise  surveillance  and  to  warn  the  reli¬ 
gious  who  neglect  weekly  confession.18  Therefore,  religious 
superiors  can  inquire  as  to  the  observance  of  this  prescription, 
for  it  is  a  question  of  an  external  act  or,  at  lenst,  a  mixed  act 
about  which  the  superiors  have  the  strict  right  of  inquiring  as 
to  whether  it  was  placed  or  not.19  Just  as  superiors  can  ask 
as  to  the  frequency,  so  also  they  can  indirectly  inquire  as  to 
who  is  the  confessor  of  each  religious.  They  can  exact  testi¬ 
mony  of  the  approach  to  confession  and  thus  come  indirectly 
to  the  knowledge  of  the  confessor.  Canons  519  and  522  do  not 
take  away  from  the  superiors  the  right  of  seeing  that  their 
subjects  are  diligent  in  the  observance  of  the  laws  of  the  church 
or  the  order  on  frequent  confession.  The  obligation  imposed 
upon  the  superior  by  the  Code  presupposes  the  permission  to 


15  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  I,  n.  700. 
ir>  Augustine,  III,  p.  3,  note  (20). 

17  Creusen.  Eeligieux  et  Eeligieuses,  n.  204.  Biederlack-Fuhrich  op.  oit., 
n.  142. 

is  Creusen,  loc.  cit. 

J9  Fanfani,  op.  oit.,  n.  322,  352,  Dub.  I. 


244 


Appendix 


use  legitimate  means  to  obtain  that  end,20  especially  if  the 
violation  of  this  law  by  a  subject  is  causing  scandal  to  the 
community.  One  or  two  omissions  of  confession  at  the  regular 
time  can  be  prudently  disregarded  by  the  superior.  These 
prescriptions,  of  course,  apply  also  to  all  religious.21 


20  Cf.  Fanfani,  loc.  cit.  dub.  III. 

21  Canon  490. 


Appendix  II. 


Cardinal  Confessors. 

Besides  the  other  privileges  contained  in  the  Code,  cardi¬ 
nals  from  the  time  of  their  promotion  in  consistory  enjoy  the 
following  faculty.1 

CANON  239. 

§  1.  1°.  Audiendi  ubique  terrarum  confessiones 
etiam  religiosorum  utriusque  sexus  et  absolvendi  ab 
omnibus  peccatis  et  censuris  etiam  reservatis,  exceptis 
tantum  censuris  Sedi  Apostolicae  specialissimo  modo  re¬ 
servatis  et  illis  quae  adnexae  sunt  revelationi  secreti  S. 
Officii. 

This  privilege  of  hearing  the  confessions  of  all  religious 
and  absolving  from  all  sins  and  censures,  except  those  most 
specially  reserved  to  the  Holy  See  and  those  connected  with 
the  violation  of  the  Holy  Office,  was  first  granted  to  cardinals 
by  Pius  X.2  By  virtue  of  this,  cardinals  can  absolve  without 
any  episcopal  approbation  religious  anywhere  in  the  world.3 
This  is  vicarious  jurisdiction  and  it  cannot  be  delegated.  It 
is  evident  that  the  legislator  is  opposed  to  extending  this  fullest 
ordinary  power  which  the  cardinal  has  received  to  hear  con¬ 
fessions  to  the  conferring  of  jurisdiction,  The  legislator  can¬ 
not  be  considered  to  have  given  them  this  incredible  power  of 
delegating  all  over  the  world  any  priests  whatsoever  to  hear 
the  confessions  of  any  person  and  of  absolving  even  from  cases 
especially  reserved  to  the  Holy  See.  The  privilege  of  cardinals 
of  choosing  a  confessor  for  themselves  would  be  useless  if  they 
could  make  all  priests  capable  of  receiving  confessions.4 

1  Canon  239,  §  1. 

2  Ex  audientia,  SSmi,  D.  N.  Pii  PP  X.  Dec.  20,  1911;  Vermeersch, 

Periodica  VII,  n.  737,  p.  251. 

3  Vermeersch,  loc.  cit.  p.  252. 

4  Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.  II,  n.  146. 

[  245  ] 


Appendix  III. 


Jubilee  Confessors. 

Under  the  old  law  the  choice  of  a  confessor  granted  to  a 
religious  during  a  Jubilee,  was  a  great  concession,  but  after  the 
decree  of  1913  and  that  of  May  3,  1914,  the  provisions  of  which, 
with  some  few  changes,  have  been  adapted  into  the  Code  of 
Canon  Law,1  it  is  no  longer  a  noticeable  exception. 

Religious  Who  Can  Gain  the  Jubilee  Indulgence  During  the 

Holy  Year. 

1.  All  nuns  who  live  in  monasteries,  in  which  perpetual 
enclosure  is  observed  ;2  novices,  postulants  and  secular  wo¬ 
men  who  live  in  such  monasteries  for  the  sake  of  education 
or  for  any  other  legitimate  reason  and  even  though  these  latter 
reside  in  the  monastery  merely  for  the  greater  part  of  the  year ; 
also  lay  sisters  who,  in  the  discharge  of  their  duties  or  for  the 
purpose  of  collecting  alms,  leave  the  religious  enclosure. 

2.  All  religious  sisters,  i.  e.,  females  who  take  simple  vows 
and  who  belong  to  a  congregation,  either  of  pontifical  or  of 
diocesan  right,  although  they  are  not  bound  by  the  strict  law 
of  the  enclosure  as  nuns,  as  well  as  their  novices,  postulants, 
female  pupil  boarders — externs  not  included — and  other  fe¬ 
males  who  live  with  the  religious,  sharing  their  table  and  resi¬ 
dence. 

3.  Oblates  or  pious  women  who  live  in  common,  even  though 
they  take  no  vows,  as  well  as  their  novices,  postulants,  resident 
female  pupils  and  others,  women  who  live  with  them.  However, 
in  order  that  oblates  enjoy  the  privilege  conveyed  in  the  apos¬ 
tolic  constitution,  it  is  necessary  that  their  institute  shall  have 
been  approved  of  by  ecclesiastical  authority,  either  permanently 
oi*  as  an  experiment. 

1  Can.  519,  874,  $1,  521,  $2;  522;  523. 

2  Can.  488,  $  7. 


[  246  ] 


jubilee  Confessors 


247 


4.  All  women  belonging  to  any  of  the  Third  Orders  Regu¬ 
lar,  provided  they  live  in  community  under  one  and  the  same 
roof  with  ecclesiastical  approbation  as  well  as  women  who  live 
with  them,  as  in  the  case  of  nuns,  sisters  and  oblates  or  terti- 
aries. 

5.  Certain  classes  of  hermits  and  anchorites.  The  privi¬ 
lege  is  not  meant  for  those  who  bound  by  no  law  of  enclosure, 
live  either  in  community  or  as  solitaries  under  the  direction  of 
Ordinaries  and  observe  certain  laws,  but  only  for  such  hermits 
or  anchorites  as  live  in  continuous — although  not  absolutely 
perpetual — enclosure,  lead  a  life  of  contemplation  and  make 
profession  of  a  Monastic  or  a  regular  order  as  the  Reformed 
Cistercians  of  Our  Lady  de  la  Trappe,  the  Camaldolese  and 
the  Carthusians.3 

With  this  exception  of  certain  classes  of  hermits  and  an¬ 
chorites,  male  religious  as  such  are  not  included  among  those 
privileged  to  gain  the  Jubilee  this  year  without  the  Roman 
visits.  Some  male  religious  may  come,  however,  under  the  next 
two  numbers.4 

6.  The  faithful  of  either  sex  who  are  held  captive  in  the 
power  of  enemies  or  who  are  confined  to  prison  or  who  have 
been  exiled  or  deported  or  who  have  been  condemned  to  labor 
in  penal  institutions;  also  ecclesiastics  and  male  religious  who 
are  confined  in  monasteries  or  other  houses  for  the  purpose  of 
correction. 

7.  The  faithful  of  either  sex,  by  illness  or  poor  health ; 
those  in  hospitals  taking  care  of  sick ;  old  persons  over  seventy ; 
if  they  cannot  go  to  Rome  or  if  in  Rome  itself  cannot  make 
visits.  (Those  in  hospitals  is  new  concession  of  this  year).5 

During  the  second  year  of  the  jubilee — The  faculty  to  gain 

3  Pius  XI,  Const.  Apostolico  Munere,  July  30,  1924,  AAS,  1924,  Vol.  XVI, 

p.  317,  ff;  Cf.  Am.  Ecc.  Rev.  (1924),  Vol.  71,  p.  494,  Cf.  n.  490, 
501.  The  translation  of  this  constitution  is  taken  from  that  made 
by  Rev.  Joseph  McCarthy;  Am.  Ecc.  Eev.  (1925)  LXXII,  14,  15. 

4  McCarthy,  Ibidem,  p.  16;  Numbers  7  and  8  apply  directly  to  the  faith¬ 

ful  but  in  ‘  ‘  f avorabilibus ’ 7  religious  would  be  included  in  this  term; 
cf.  Maroto,  Institutiones  J  C,  n.  236. 

5  ibidem,  p.  15;  (elements  not  applicable  to  religious  have  been  omitted). 


248 


Appendix 


the  indulgence  is  granted  to  all  religious  who  were  incapable  of 
going  to  Rome  during  the  first  year  and  also  to  those  who  could 
make  the  Jubilee  during  the  first  year. 

Special  Faculties  of  Confessor  of  Religious  Who  Make  the 

Jubilee  Either  Year. 

Commutation  of  Vows  and  Dispensation. 

Vows  of  Nuns. 

The  Jubilee  confessor,  chosen  by  a  nun,  can  dispense  from 
all  private  vows  made  after  solemn  profession  and  which  are 
in  no  way  opposed  to  the  regular  observance.6  By  C.  1315 
vows  made  before  religious  profession  are  suspended  as  long  as 
the  one  who  made  it  remains  in  religion.  A  vow  made  after 
religious  profession  and  which  interferes  with  regular  observ¬ 
ance,  would  be  invalid  and  no  need  of  dispensation.  A  just 
cause  is  necessary  to  grant  dispensation  and  no  other  work  need 
be  substituted,  since  power  granted  in  favor  of  nuns  is  a  power 
of  dispensing. 

The  Holy  See  grants  to  the  Jubilee  confessor  the  power  to 
commute  even  by  dispensation  all  private  vows,  except  those 
reserved  to  the  Holy  See,  with  which  sisters  belonging  to  con¬ 
gregations  of  simple  vows  (which  is  the  case  in  all  communities 
of  female  religious  in  the  United  States  with  the  exception  of 
the  four  convents  of  the  Order  of  the  Visitation,  at  George¬ 
town,  D.  C.,  Baltimore,  Md.,  St.  Louis,  Mo.  and  Mobile,  Ala.,7 
as  well  as  oblates,  tertiaries  of  a  regular  order,  girls  and 
women  living  with  any  of  these  or  in  a  school  or  colleges  in¬ 
tended  for  females,  have  bound  themselves.  He  can,  moreover, 
having  made  a  commutation,  absolve  from  the  observance  of 
vows  confirmed  by  oath.8 

Private  vows  reserved  to  Holy  See  are  vows  of  perfect  and 
perpetual  chastity  and  the  vow  to  enter  a  religious  order  in 
which  solemn  vows  are  taken,  made  unconditionally  and  after 

6  Const.  Apostolico  miinere,  ibid. 

7  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  Americana  Votorum,  Sept.  2,  1864;  Bizzarri,  p.  736. 

8  Const.  Apostolico  munere,  n.  VIII;  AAS  XVI,  320. 


Jubilee  Confessors 


249 


the  completion  of  one’s  eighteenth  year  (Canon  1309).  Power 
of  commuting  even  by  dispensing,  implies  the  confessor  can 
substitute  a  work  of  notably  less  moral  value  than  the  original 
work  vowed. 

Vows  of  Male  and  Female  Religious — When  the  jubilee  is 
extended  to  the  whole  world,  the  jubilee  confessor  can,  for  a 
just  and  probable  cause,  but  only  in  the  jubilee  confession 
itself,  by  dispensation,  commute  into  other  pious  works  all  and 
every  private  vow  and  even  those  reserved  to  the  Holy  See. 
He  can  likewise  for  a  just  and  probable  cause  by  dispensation 
commute  into  other  pious  works  the  vow  of  perfect  and  per¬ 
petual  chastity.  This  can  be  done ;  even  if  this  vow  was  publicly 
taken  in  religious  profession,  and  this  vow  remains  firm  and  en¬ 
tire,  although  the  other  vows  of  his  profession  were  taken  away 
by  dispensation.  This  cannot  be  done,  however,  if,  on  the  con¬ 
trary,  the  penitent  was  in  Holy  Orders  and  bound  by  the  law  of 
celibacy.  Vows  accepted  by  a  third  party  cannot  be  remitted 
or  commuted,  unless  he,  who  is  concerned,  freely  and  expressly 
consents.  The  vows  of  not  sinning  and  other  penal  vows  he 
cannot  commute  into  a  work,  which  will  be  not  less  effective  in 
restraining  from  sin  than  the  vow  itself.9 

Choice  of  Confessors — Nuns  and  other  women,  for  whose 
confessions  from  the  prescription  of  the  Code  special  approbation 
of  the  Ordinary  is  required,  have  the  right  for  the  Jubilee  con¬ 
fession  to  confess  to  any  confessor  approved  for  the  faithful  by 
the  same  Ordinary  of  the  place  for  both  sexes.  Once  this  is  com¬ 
pleted,  the  confessor  no  longer  enjoys  jurisdiction  over  that 
penitent  unless,  according  to  the  laws  of  the  Code.10  The  words 
“once  completed”  must  not  be  taken  in  a  strict  numerical  sense, 
that  is,  that  once  he  has  heard  the  confession  he  cannot  be  sum¬ 
moned  again.  They  should  be  understood  in  an  integrative  sense, 
that  is,  until  the  religious  has  completed  the  works  necessary  to 
gain  the  jubilee  indulgence,  so  that  during  this  time  she  could 

9  Const.  Servatoris,  Dec.  25,  1925,  n.  VIII;  AAS  XVII,  616  if;  Pius  XI, 
Const  “Si  unquam,’’  July  15,  1924;  n.  VII,  p.  312. 

io  Const.  Servatoris  Dec.  25,  1925,  AAS,  1925.  Vol.  XVII,  p.  615,  ad 
facultates  n.  II. 


250 


Appendix 


again  summon  a  priest  approved  for  both  sexes  and  confess  to 
him.  The  clause  “si  adeat”  of  Canon  522,  is  suppressed  for 
this  occasion  and  she  can  summon  him  to  the  convent  and 
neither  is  there  any  prescription  in  regard  to  the  place  for 
confession  as  under  this  same  canon  just  mentioned.11 

11  S.  Penitentiaria,  June  5,  1901;  Cf.  ME,  13,  202,  ad.  Ill;  Cf.  also  ME 
38,  p.  11. 


Appendix  IV. 


Power  of  Confessor  in  Regard  to  Reception  of  Communion. 

To  the  confessor  alone  is  reserved  the  right  to  permit  or 
refuse  the  approach  to  the  Holy  Table.  This  was  first  stated 
by  Innocent  XI,  February  12,  1679, 1  and  repeated  constantly 
since.  The  letter  of  the  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  August  4,  1888, 2  which 
excluded  the  consent  of  the  superioress  as  necessary,  advised 
them  to  go  as  often  as  there  was  no  reasonable  cause  to  prevent 
them. 

Nevertheless,  abuses  crept  in  and  superioresses  arbitrarily 
permitted  or  refused  permission  to  receive  Holy  Communion.3 
This  caused  Leo  XIII  in  the  decree  “  Quemadmodum”  to  state 
that  the  right  to  permit  or  refuse  reception  belonged  only  to 
the  ordinary  or  extraordinary  confessor.  Superiors  had  no 
power  to  mix  in  this  matter,  except  when  a  religious  had  given 
scandal  to  community  since  last  confession  or  was  guilty  of 
grave  blame.  In  these  cases  the  superior  could  refuse  per¬ 
mission  until  the  religious  approached  the  Sacrament  of  Penance 
again.4  One  getting  permission  to  go  frequently  and  daily  to 
Communion  from  the  confessor,  was  to  notify  the  superioress.  If 
the  latter  has  grave  objections  she  could  manifest  them  to  the 
confessor,  to  whose  supreme  judgment  she  had  to  acquiesce.5 

The  same  thing  was  repeated  by  Pius  X  in  his  decree  <  ‘  Tri- 
dentina”  on  frequent  Communion,  December  20,  1905. 6 

1  Deer.  S.  C.  Concilii,  “Cum  ad  aures ’’  Col,.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (1907)  n.  219. 

2  Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (1893),  n.  442. 

3  S.  C.  EE  et  RR,  “  Quemadmodum,’ ’  Dec.  7,  1890,  Intro;  S.  C.  P.  F. 

1907,  n.  1740. 

4  Ibidem,  n.  5. 

5  Ibidem,  n.  6. 

6  n.  5 — Ut  frequens  et  quotidiana  Communio  majori  prudentia  fiat 

uberiorique  merito  augeatur,  oportet  ut  confessarii  consilium  inter- 
cedat.  Caveant  tamen  confessarii  ne  a  frequenti  seu  quatidiano  Com- 
munione  quemquam  avertant,  qui  in  statu  graciae  reperiatur  et  recta 
mente  accedat Col.  S.  C.  P.  F.  (1907),  n.  2225,  n.  5. 

[251] 


252 


Appendix 


If  it  is  a  question  of  Communion  considered  in  a  general 
fashion  in  regard  to  all  consciences,  it  is  the  confessor  who  is  to 
judge  of  sin  and  on  that  title  indirectly  judge  of  the  possible 
access  to  the  Holy  Table.  He  will  prohibit  this  in  certain  cir¬ 
cumstances  and,  according  to  the  rules  of  moral  theology,  for 
those  habitually  in  grave  sin. 

If  it  is  a  question  of  frequent  or  daily  Communion  for 
souls  habitually  in  the  state  of  grace,  here  the  intervention  of 
the  confessor  is  no  more  than  a  counsel  for  the  reception  of 
the  Eucharist,  merited  by  obedience  and  prudence.7 

If,  after  the  last  sacramental  confession,  a  religious  was 
the  cause  of  grave  scandal  to  the  community,  until  he  has  again 
approached  Sacrament  of  Penance,  the  superior  can  prohibit  his 
approach  to  Holy  Communion.8 


7  Mothon,  Etat  Eeligieux,  n.  180,  p.  267.  ff. 

8  Can.  595,  $  3,  Augustine  III,  p.  309. 


Appendix  V. 


Correspondence  with  the  Confessor. 

This  is  rather  a  delicate  question,  which  frequently  arises 
as  to  whether  the  religious  can  keep  up  their  relations  for  the 
sake  of  spiritual  direction  by  visits  or  correspondence,  either 
postulants  with  the  confessor  they  had  before  entrance  or  a 
religious  with  the  ordinary  confessor  after  his  term  has  been 
completed.  This  was  prohibited  for  nuns  by  Benedict  XIV  in 
his  constitution  ‘  ‘  Pastoralis  Curae  ’  ’ 1 2  which  was  reaffirmed  by 
the  Cardinal  Vicar  of  Rome  December  12,  1708, 2  because  experi¬ 
ence  had  demonstrated  that  such  practices  engendered  trouble, 
confusion,  schism  and  regrettable  divergence  in  the  spirit  of 
the  community.3  And  in  fact  the  general  rule  as  laid  down  in 
the  “Normae”  of  19014  of  the  Congregation  of  Bishops  and 
Regulars,  was  that  all  letters  of  the  religious  were  to  pass 
through  the  hands  of  the  local  superior,  who  had  the  right  to 
read  them,  with  prudence  and  kindness  and  was  to  keep  them 
under  the  natural  secret.  Some  religious  constitutions  required 
that  letters  be  brought  opened  to  the  superior  or  superioress.5 

Under  the  present  law,  Canon  611,  the  confessor  is  not 
mentioned  as  one  of  those  to  whom  religious,  whether  male  or 
female,  can  correspond  with  immunity  from  inspection  of  letters 
by  the  religious  superior  or  superioress.6 

Therefore,  the  confessor  should  not  request  his  religious 
penitents  to  write  to  him  on  matters  of  spiritual  direction  or 
conscience,  even  if  the  letters  are  marked  “  Matters  of  Con¬ 
science”  on  the  outside,  unless  he  is  sure  that  they  will  not  be 


1  Aug.  5,  1748,  §18;  FJC  N.  388. 

2  Ferraris,  v.  Monialis,  V,  ad  3;  p.  1103. 

3  Mothon,  Traite  de  la  Confession  Sacramentelle,  p.  17  ff. 

4  June  28,  1901;  art.  179. 

5  Statuta,  St.  Congregationis  Bcnedictino-Bavaricae,  n.  84;  quoted  by 

Leitner,  Handbuch,  p.  444. 

6  Leitner,  Handbuch,  p.  444. 


[  253  ] 


254 


Appendix 


read  by  the  respective  superiors,  especially  since  the  perusal  of 
these  letters  in  lay  institutes  of  men  and  women  is  not  forbid¬ 
den.7  If  it  is  a  question  of  letters  being  sent  out  by  their  sub¬ 
jects  then  the  superior  could  read  them,  but  equity  demands 
as  well  as  charity  a  more  benign  way  of  acting.8 

7  Leitner,  ibidem;  Vermeersch,  Periodica,  V,  p.  (53). 

8  Vermeersch,  Per.  V,  p.  (54). 


BIBLIOGR  APHY 


Abbreviations  will  be  found  prefixed  to  the  title  of  the  work. 

JURIDICAL  SOURCES 

Codex  Juris  Canonici  Pii  X  Pontificis  Maximi  jussu  digestus  Benedicti 
Papae  XV  auctoritate  promulgatus ,  Romae,  1917. 

Canonical  Legislation  concerning  Eeligious ,  Authorised  English  Translation 
Rome,  1919. 

AAS =Acta  Apostolicae  Sedis,  Romae,  1909-1926. 

ASS=Acta  Sanctae  Sedis,  41  Vol.,  Romae,  1865-1908. 

Acta  Leonis  XIII  Pontificis  Maximi,  22  vol.,  Rome,  1881-1893. 

BRT —Bullarum,  Diplomatum  et  Privilegiorum  Sanctorum  Eomanorum 
Pontificum,  Taurine nsis  editio  .  .  .  auspicante  Card.  Francisco  Gaude, 
24  vol.,  Augustae  Taurinorum,  1857-1872. 

Bullarii  Eomani  Continuatio  Summorum  Pontificum,  10  vol.,  Prati,  1756- 
1883. 

Bullarium  Ordinis  Praedicatorum,  7  vol.,  Romae,  1739. 

Collectanea  in  usum  Sacretariae  Sacrae  Congregationis  Episcoporum  et 
Eegularium,  vide  Bizzarri. 

Col.  S.  C.  P.  P .^Collectanea  Sacrae  Congregationis  de  Propaganda  Fide, 

2  vol.  Romae,  1907. 

Concilii  Plenarii  Baltimorensis  II,  .  .  .  Acta  et  Decreta,  Baltimorae,  1868. 
Concilii  Plenarii  Baltimorensis  III,  .  .  .  Acta  et  Decreta,  Baltimorae,  1886. 
Concilii  Plenarii  Australasiae  I,  .  .  .  Acta  et  Decreta,  Sydney,  1887. 
Concilii  Plenarii  Australasiae  II,  .  .  .  Acta  et  Decreta,  Sydney,  1898. 
Constitutiones  Fratrum,  S.  Ordinis  Praedicatorum,  Paris,  1886. 

Corpus  Juris  Canonici,  editio  Lipsiensis  secunda  post  Aemilii  Ludovici 
Eichteri  curas  ad  librorum  manu  scriptorum  et  editionis  romanae  fidem 
recognovit  et  adnotatione  critica  instruxit  Aemilius  Friedberg,  2  vol., 
Lipsiae,  1922. 

FJC —Codicis  Juris  Canonici  Fontes  cura  Emi.  Petri  Card.  Gasparri  editi, 

3  vol.,  Romae,  1923-1925. 

Statuta  Dioecesis  Novarcensis,  quae  in  Synodo  Dioecesana  tertia  .  .  .  tulit 
et  promulgavit  Ill’mus  et  Eev’mus  Michaelis  Augustinus  Corrigan, 
Episcopus.,  New  York,  1878. 

Synodus  Dioecesana  Albanensis  IV,  Troy,  N.  Y.,  1887. 

Synodus  Dioecesana  Albanensis  V,  Troy,  N.  Y.,  1890. 

Synodus  Dioecesana  Albanensis  VI,  Albany,  N.  Y.,  1895. 

Synodi  Uartfordensis  Conn.,  IV  Constitutiones,  Hartford,  Conn.,  1887. 
Synodus  Dioecesana  Manchesteriensis  I,  Manchester,  N.  H.,  1886. 

Synodus  Dioecesana  Neo-Eboracensis  V,  New  York,  N.  Y.,  1886. 

[  255  ] 


256  Bibliography 

REFERENCE  WORKS 

Aertnys,  Joseph,  C.  SS.  R.,  Theologici  Moralis,  2  vol.,  7  ed.,  Paderbornae, 
1906. 

Aertnys-Damen,  C.  A.,  C.  SS.  R.,  Tlieologia  Moralis ,  2  vol.,  10  ed.,  Bus- 
coduci,  1921. 

Andrews,  E.  A.,  L.  L.  D.,  Copious  and  Critical  Latin-English  Lexicon, 
New  York,  1857. 

Arregui,  Antonius  M.,  S.  J.,  Summarium  Tlieologiae  Moralis,  8  ed.,  Bilbao, 
1923. 

Augustine,  Charles,  O.  S.  B.,  A  Commentary  on  The  New  Code  of  Canon 
Law,  9  vol.,  St.  Louis,  1918-1922. 

Azpilcueta,  Martin,  Enchiridion  sive  Manuale  Confessariorum  et  Peni- 
tentium,  Wirceburgi,  1593. 

Ballerini,  Antonius,  S.  J.,  Opus  Tlicologicum  Morale,  7  vol.,  Prati,  1898- 
1901. 

Barbosa,  Augustinus,  J.  U.  D.,  Tractatus  Varii,  London,  1660. 

Bastien,  Dom  Pierre,  O.  S.  B.,  Directoire  Canonique  a  V usage  des  Con¬ 
gregations  a  voeux  simples,  Troisieme  Edition,  Bruges,  1923. 

Battandier,  Albert,  Guide  Canonique  pour  les  Constitutions  des  Instituts 
a  voeux  simples,  16  ed.,  Paris,  1923. 

Benedictus  XIV,  Opera  Omnia,  17  vol.,  Prati,  1839-1847. 

Benedictus  XIV,  De  Synodo  Dioccesana,  2  vol.,  Romae,  1806. 

Besse,  Dom.  Jean,  O.  S.  B.,  Les  Moines  d’ Orient  anterieurs  au  Concile  de 
Chalcedoine  (451).  Paris,  1900. 

Biederlack,  Josephus,  S.  J.,  De  Beligiosis  Codicis  Juris  Canonici  .  .  .denuo 
recognovit  Maximilianus  Fuhrich,  S.  J.,  Oeniponte,  1919. 

Bizzarri,  Andreas,  Collectanea  in  usum  Secrctariae  Sacrae  Congregationis 
Episcoporum  et  Begularium,  edita  Romae,  1885. 

Blat,  Fr.  Albertus,  O.  P.,  Commentarium  Textus  Codicis  Juris  Canonici, 
5  vol.,  Romae,  1921-1925. 

Bouix,  D.,  Tractatus  De  Jure  Begularium,  2  vol.,  3  ed.,  Parisiis,  1883. 

Brandes,  Dom  Charles,  O.  S.  B.,  A  Commentary  on  the  Buie  of  St.  Bene¬ 
dict  and  a  TJistory  of  His  Life,  Einseideln  and  New  York,  1857. 

Brandys,  P.  Maximillian,  O.  F.  M.,  Eirchliches  Beclitsbuch  fur  die  Be- 
ligiosen  Laiengenossenscliaften  der  Bruder  and  Schwestern  nach  dem 
neuen  Gesetzbuch  der  hi.  Kirche,  2  ed.,  Paderborn,  1920. 

Bucceroni,  P.  Januario,  S.  J.,  Casus  Conscientiae,  2  vol.,  6  ed.,  Romae, 
1913;  .  .  .  Jam  Besoluti  nunc  ad  Normam  Codicis  Juris  Canonici 
Emendati,  Romae,  1920. 

Butler,  Cuthbert,  O.  S.  B.,  Benedictine  Monachism,  New  York,  1919. 

Casey,  Rev.  P.  II.  S.  J.,  Notes  on  a  History  of  Auricular  Confession  (A 
Beply  to  H.  C.  Lea),  Philadelphia,  1899. 

Catholic  Encyclopedia,  16  vol.,  New  York,  1907-1914;  Supplement  I — Canon 
Laiv,  New  York,  1918. 

Ohelodi,  Joannes,  J.  C.  D.,  Jus  de  Personis  juxta  Codicem  Juris  Canonici, 
Tridenti,  1922. 

Chokier,  Erasmus,  Tractatus  de  Jurisdiction  Ordinarii  in  Exemptos, 
Colonia  Agrippinae,  1639. 


Bibliography 


257 


Choupin,  Lucien,  8.  J.,  Eecents  Decrets  du  Saint  Siege  concernant  les 
Beligieux  et  Beligieuses,  Paris,  1915. 

Nature  et  Obligations  de  I’Etat  Beligieux,  Paris,  1923. 

Clarke,  Wm.  K.  Lowther,  St.  Basil  The  Great — A  Study  in  Monasticism, 
Cambridge,  1913. 

Coccm,  Guidus,  Commentarium  in  Codicem  Juris  Canonici,  6  vol.,  Taur- 
inorum  Augustae,  1920-1924. 

Creusen,  J.,  S.  J.,  Beligieux  et  Beligieuses  d’apres  Le  Droit  Ecclesiastique, 
13  ed.,  Paris,  1924. 

Urusenius,  Nicolaus,  Monasticon  Augustinianum,  (Place  not  mentioned), 
1623. 

Curran,  Thomas,  P.,  Confessors  and  Confessions  of  Beligious  Women  of 
Simple  Vows,  Washington,  1916. 

Dargin,  Edward,  J.  C.  D.,  Beserved  Cases  According  to  The  Code  of  Canon 
Law,  Washington,  1924. 

De  Latte,  Abbot  Paul,  O.  S.  B.,  A  Commentary  on  The  Buie  of  St.  Bene¬ 
dict,  New  York,  1921. 

De  Meester,  A.,  D.  J.  C.,  Juris  Canonici  et  Juris  Canonico-Civilis  Com¬ 
pendium,  2  vol.,  Brugis,  1921-1923. 

Denzinger,  Henrico,  Enchiridion  nymbolorum,  Definitionum  et  Declara- 
tionum  de  Bebus  Fidei  et  Morum,  13  ed.,  quam  paravit  Clemens  Bann- 
wart,  S.  J.  Friburgi-Brisgoviae,  1921. 

Du  Cange,  Glossarium  ad  Scriptores  Mediae  et  Infimae  Latinitatis,  6  vol., 
Parisiis,  1733-1736. 

Eiises,  Stephen,  Concilium  Tridentinum,  Diariorum  Actorum,  Epistularum, 
Tractatuum,  Nova  Collectio  edidit  Societas  Goerresiana,  10  vol.,  Fri¬ 
burgi-Brisgoviae,  1911-1916;  Tom.  9,  compilavit  Stephanus  Ehses. 

Facciolati,  Jacobi,  Totius  Latinitatis  Lexicon,  2  vol.,  London,  1826. 

Fanfani,  Ludovicus,  I.,  O.  P.,  De  Jure  Beligiosorum,  ad  Normam  Codicis 
Juris  Canonici,  Augustae  Taurinorum,  1920;  ed  altera  Taurini-Romae, 
1925. 

Ferraris,  F.  Lucii,  O.  M.  Reg.  Obs.  Sti.  Francisci,  Prompta  Bibliotheca 
Canonica,  Juridica,  Moralis,  Theologica  necnon  Ascetica,  Polemica , 
Bubristica,  Historica.,  9  vol.,  Romae,  1885-1892. 

Forcelljni,  Aegidii,  Totius  Latinitatis  Lexicon,  4  vol.,  Schneebergae-Lip- 
siae,  1831-1839. 

Gasparri,  Petro,  Tractatus  Canonicus  de  Sanctissima  Eucharistia,  2  vol., 
Parisiis,  1897. 

Gazaeus,  D.  Alardi,  O.  S.  B.,  Cassiani  Joannis  Opera  Omnia,  cum  Com- 
mentariis,  Lipsiae,  1733. 

Genicot,  Eduardus,  S.  J.,  Tlieologiae  Moralis  Institutiones,  6  ed.  quam 
rccognovit  J.  Salsman  S.  J.,  2  vol.,  Bruxellis,  1909;  10  ed.  ibid.,  1922. 

Gennari,  Casmiro,  Card.,  Consultazioni  Morali,  2  vol.,  3  ed.,  Rome,  1913- 
1915,  Quistioni  Canoniche,  Rome,  1908. 

Giraldus,  Ubaldus,  Expositio  Juris  Pontificii,  3  vol.,  Romae,  1829-1830. 

Guar,  P.  Joannes,  S.  J.,  Compendium  Theologiae  Moralis,  3  ed.  2  vol., 
Lugduni,  1881. 

Gury-Ferreres,  P.  Joannes,  8.  J.,  Casus  Conscientiae,  4  ed.,  Hispana, 
Prima  post  Codicem,  2  vol.,  Barcinone,  1920. 


258 


Bibliography 


Haddan,  Arthur  West  and  Stubbs,  Wm.;  Councils  and  Ecclesiastical  Docu¬ 
ments  relating  to  Great  Britain  and  Ireland ,  3  vol.,  London  (Oxford), 
1869-1871. 

Harduin,  Jean,  S.  J.,  Counciliorum  Collectio  Regia  Maxima,  12  vol., 
Parisiis,  1714-1725. 

Hefele,  Carl  Joseph,  Conciliengeschichte ,  9  vol.,  2  ed.,  Freiburg  im 
Breisgau,  1873-1890. 

Heimbuciier,  Dr.  Max,  Die  Orden  und  Kongregationen  der  Katholischen 
Kirche,  3  vol.,  2  ed.,  Paderborn,  1907-1908. 

Hilling,  Nicolaus,  Codicis  Juris  Canonici  Interpretatio,  Friburg,  Breisgau, 
1925. 

Hizette,  Chanoine,  S.  T.  D.,  Confessions  des  Eeligieuses,  2  ed.,  Paris,  1913; 
Supplement,  Paris,  1920. 

Holstenius,  Codex  Regularum,  5  vol.,  Augustae  Yindelicorum,  1759. 

Jansen,  P.  Joseph,  O.  M.  I.,  Ordensrecht,  Paderborn,  1920. 

Labbeus  Phil,  et  Cossartius  Gabr.  S.  J.,  Sacrorum  Conciliorum  Nova  et 
Amplissima  Collectio,  ...  a  Card.  Dominico  Passioneo,  30  vol.,  Floren- 
tiae-Venetiis,  1759-1792. 

La  Croix,  R.  F.,  Claudio,  S.  J.,  Theologia  Moralis,  2  vol.  Venetiis,  1766. 

Ladeuze,  Paulin,  Etude  sur  le  Cenobitisme  Pakhomien,  Louvaine,  1898. 

Lanslots,  D.  I.,  O.  S.  B.,  Handbook  of  Canon  Law  for  Congregations  of 
Women  under  Simple  Vows,  New  York,  1909. 

Lea,  Henry  C.,  A  History  of  Auricular  Confession  and  Indulgences  in  the 
Latin  Church,  2  vol.,  1896. 

Lehmkuhl,  Augustine,  S.  J.,  Theologia  Moralis,  2  vol.,  12  ed.,  Friburgi 
Brisgoviae,  1914. 

Leitner,  Dr.  Martin,  Handbucli  des  Katholischen  Kirchenrechts  auf  Grunde 
des  neuen  Codex  vom  28  Juni,  1917,  (Regensburg,  1918-1919;  ( Dritte 
Lieferung,  Das  Ordensrecht,  Regensburg,  1922). 

Lucidi,  Angelus,  De  Visitatione  Sacrorum  Liminum  Instructio  S.  C.  Coun- 
cilii  edita  jussu  P.  M.  Benedicti  XIII  exposita  et  additionibus  aucta 
per  P.  Joseplium  Schneider,  S.  J.,  3  vol.,  3  ed.,  Romae,  1883. 

Mackean,  Rev.  W.  H.,  D.  D.,  Christian  Monasticism  in  Egypt  to  the  Close 
of  the  Fourth  Century,  London,  1920. 

Mansi,  Joannes  Dominicus,  Sacrorum  Conciliorum  Nova  et  Amplissima 
Collectio,  51  vol.,  Paris,  Arnhem  and  Leipzig,  1903-1924. 

Marc,  P.  Clement,  C.  SS.  R.,  Institutiones  Morales  Alphonsiae,  2  vol., 
Romae,  1885. 

Marciiand,  Alfred,  Moines  et  Nonnes,  Histoire,  Constitution,  Regie,  Coutume 
et  Statistique  des  Odres  Religieux,  2  vol.,  Paris,  1880. 

Marin,  L’Abbe,  Les  Moines  de  Constantinople  (330-898),  Paris,  1897. 

Melo,  Antonius,  O.  F.  M.,  J.  C.  L.,  De  Exemptione  Regularium,  Washington, 
1921. 

MPG=Migne,  Patrologia  Graeca. 

MPL=:Migne,  Patrologia  Latina  j 

Monier,  Abbe  Leon,  A  History  of  St.  Francis,  of  Assisi,  London,  1894. 

Montalambert,  Charles  Count  de,  Monks  of  the  West  from  St.  Benedict 
to  St.  Bernard,  Boston,  1872. 

Morison,  B.  D.,  E.  F.,  St.  Basil  and  His  Rule ,  4  Study  in  Early  Monas¬ 
ticism,  London,  1912, 


Bibliography 


259 


Mothon,  Joseph  Pie,  O.  P.,  Traite  de  la  Confession  Sacramentelle  a  V usage 
des  Communautes  de  Beligieuses ,  Lille,  1913. 

Traite  sur  UEtat  Beligieux,  Paris,  1922. 

Noldin,  Jerome,  S.  J.,  Theologia  Moralis  (De  Sacramentis ),  Oeniponte, 
1920. 

O’Donnell,  Rev.  M.  J.,  Penance  in  the  Early  Church,  Dublin,  1908. 

Papi,  Hector,  S.  J.,  Beligious  in  Church  Law,  New  York,  1924. 

The  Government  of  Beligious  Communities,  New  York,  1919. 

Pellizarius,  Franciscus,  S.  J.,  Tractatio  de  Monialibus,  Venetiis,  1651. 

Pennachi,  Joseph,  Commentaria  in  Constitutionem  ‘ ‘ Apostolicae  Sedis” 
qua  Censurae  latae  sententiae  limitantur,  2  vol.,  Rome,  1883. 

Pignatelli,  Jacobi,  Consult  ationes  Canoniciae,  11  tomes,  Coloniae  Allo- 
brogum,  1700. 

Pourrat,  Rev.  P.,  Christian  Spirituality  from  the  Time  of  Christ  till  the 
Dawn  of  the  Middle  Ages,  New  York,  1922. 

PrPmmer,  Dominicus,  M.,  O.  P.,  Manuale  Juris  Canonici,  3  ed.,  Friburgi 
Brisgoviae,  1922. 

Rauschen,  Gerhard,  PH.  D.,  S.  T.  D.,  Eucharist  and  Penance  in  the  First 
Six  Centuries  of  the  Church,  St.  Louis,  1913. 

Reiffenstuel,  F.  Anecletus,  Jus  Canonicum  Universum,  6  vol.,  Antuerpiae, 
1733. 

Roderici,  F.  0.  F.  M.,  Besolutiones  Quaestionum  Begularium,  Lugduni, 
1634. 

Buie  of  St.  Benedict,  Birmingham,  1844.  (Editor  not  mentioned.) 

Sabetti,  Aloysio,  S.  J.,  Compendium  Theologiae  Moralis,  30  ed.  ad  novum 
Codicem  Juris  Canonici  concinnata  a  Timotheo  Barret,  S.  J.,  (ed. 
quarta  post  Codicem),  New  York,  1924. 

St.  Alphonsus,  C.  SS.  R.,  Theologia  Moralis,  9  vol.,  Parisiis,  1834. 

Sciiaaf,  Valentine,  O.  F.  M.,  J.  C.  D.,  The  Cloister,  Cincinnati,  1921. 

Schafer,  P.  Timotheus,  O.  M.  Cap.,  Das  Ordensrecht  nach  dem  Codex 
Juris  Canonici,  Munster  i.  W.,  1923. 

Scherer,  Rudolph  R.  von,  Eandbuch  des  Kirchenrechts,  2  vol.,  Graz  und 
Leipzig,  1898. 

Smith,  I.  Gregory,  M.  A.,  Christian  Monasticism  from  the  Fourth  to  the 
Ninth  Centuries  of  the  Christian  Era,  London,  1892. 

Smith,  Rev.  S.,  D.  D.,  Notes  on  The  Second  Plenary  Council  of  Baltimore, 
New  York,  1874. 

STADTMtJLLER,  Raphael  Maria,  O.  P.,  Das  Neue  Ordensrecht,  Dtilmen  i.  W., 
1919. 

Suarez,  Franciscus,  S.  J.,  Opera  Omnia,  vol.  16,  Parisiis,  1866. 

Tanquerey,  Ad.  Synopsis  Theologiae  Moralis  et  Pastoralis,  3  vol.,  8  ed., 
Rome,  1921. 

Van  Espen,  Zegeri  Bernardi  J.  U.  D.,  Operum  Pars  Prima,  Jus  Ecclesias- 
ticum  Universum,  Lovanii,  1732. 

Vermeersch,  A.  S.  J.,  De  Beligiosis  Institutis  et  Personis  Tractatus  Canoni 
co-Moralis,  2  vol.,  4  ed.,  Brugis,  1909. 

Summa  Novi  Juris  Canonici  Commentariis  aucta,  2  ed.,  Mechliniae,  1919. 

Vermeersch-Creusen,  Epit.=A.  Vermeersch,  S.  J.,  J.  Creusen,  S.  J.,  Epi- 
tome  Juris  Canonici  cum  Commentariis  ad  scholas  et  ad  usum  privatum , 
3  vol.,  Mechliniae  (ed.  1921),  1924-1925. 


260  Bibliography 

Walde,  Alois  Dr.,  Lateinisches  Etymologisches  Widrterbuch,  Heidelberg, 
1910. 

Watkins,  Oscar  D.,  M.  A.,  A  History  of  Penance ,  2  vol.,  London,  1920. 
Wernz,  Franciscus  X.,  S.  J.,  Jus  Decretalium,  10  vol.,  Prati,  1913. 

Wernz-Vidal,  Jus  Canonicum,  auctore  P.  Francisco  Wernz,  S.  J.,  ad 
coclicis  normarn  exactum  opera  P.  Petri  Vidal  ejusdem  Societatis  sacer- 
dote,  tom.  II,  Rome,  1923. 

Woelflin,  Eduardus,  Benedicti  Begula  Monachorum,  Lipsiae,  1895. 

Works  of  St.  Francis  of  Assisi,  by  a  Beligious  of  the  Order,  London,  1882. 

Periodicals 

Am.  Ecc.  R ev.— American  Ecclesiastical  Eevieu),  Philadelphia,  vol.  49,  1913; 
vol.  52,  1915;  vol.  61,  1919;  vol.  62,  1920;  vol.  66,  1922;  vol.  69,  1923; 
vol.  74,  1926. 

An.  JP = Analecta  Juris  Pontificii,  Rome,  vol.  9,  1867;  vol.  1,  1855;  vol. 
4,  1860. 

&KKR=Archiv  fiir  Eatholischen  Kirchenrecht,  Mainz,  vol.  78,  1898; 
vol.  79,  1899;  vol.  97,  1916;  vol.  100,  1920. 

C C—Canoniste  Contemporain,  Le,  Paris,  vol.  36,  1913. 

ME —II  Monitore  Ecclesiastico,  Rome,  vol.  29,  1917;  vol.  38,  1926. 

Ir.  Ecc.  Bee.— The  Irish  Ecclesiastical  Becord,  Dublin,  (Fifth  Series,  vol. 
1,  1913;  vol.  4,  1914;  vol.  9,  1917;  vol.  12,  1918;  vol.  13,  1919;  vol. 
18,  1921;  vol.  22,  1923;  vol.  23,  1924. 

~LQ$=Linzer  theologisch-praktische  Quartalschrift,  Linz,  vol.  70,  1917;  vol. 
73,  1920;  vol.  74,  1921;  vol.  75,  1922;  vol.  76,  1923;  vol.  77,  1924; 
vol.  79,  1926. 

Nouvelle  Bevue  Theologique,  Paris,  vol.  48  (1921). 

Bason  y  Fe,  tomo  XXXVII,  Madrid,  1913. 

Vermeersch,  Per.— Arthurus  Vermeersch  S.  J.,  Be  Beligiosis  et  Missionariis 
Supplementa  et  Monumenta  periodica,  edita  Brugis,  13  vol.  (tom. 
I-XI)  1911-1925. 


Universitas  Catholica  Americae 
Washingtonii,  D.  C. 

Sacra  Facultas  Iuris  Canonic: 
1926 
No.  33 


[261] 


DEUS  LUX  MEA 


THESES 

QUAS  '  % 

AD  DOCTOR  ATUS  GRADUM 

IN 

JURE  CANONICO 

Apud  Universitatem  Catholicam  Americae 

CONSEQUENDUM 
PUBLICE  PROPUGNABIT 

ROBERTUS  EMMET  McCORMICK 

SACERDOS  ARCHIDIOECESIS  NEO  EBORACENSIS 

IURIS  CANONICI  LICENTIATUS 


HORA  IX  A.  M.  DIE  XXVIII  MAII  A.  D.  MCMXXVI 


[  263  ] 


JUS  CANONICUM 


I. 

II. 

hi. 

IV. 

v. 

VI. 

VII. 

VIII. 

IX. 

X. 

XI. 

XII. 

XIII. 


XIV. 


XV. 

XVI. 

XVII. 


XVIII. 

XIX. 

XX. 

XXI. 


XXII. 

XXIII. 

XXIV. 

XXV. 

XXVI. 

XXVII. 

XXVIII. 


XXIX. 

XXX. 

XXXI. 

XXXII. 

XXXIII. 


De  Decreto  Gratiani. 

De  Libro  Sexto  Bonifacii  VIII. 

De  Codificatione  Codicis  Iuris  Canonici. 
Canones  8-9 


De  Promulgatione  et  Vacatione  Legum 
Ecclesiasticarum. 

De  Cessatione  Legis. 

De  Consuetudine. 

De  Subiecto  Rescriptorum. 

De  Dispensationibus. 

De  Personis  in  Genere. 

De  Domicilio  et  Quasi-Domicilio. 

De  Consanguinitate  et  Affinitate. 

De  Kesidentia  Episcoporum  in  Dioecesi. 
De  Episcoporum  Obligatione  Missam  pro 
Populo  Applicandi. 

e  Episcoporum  Coadiutorum  et  Auxiliar- 
ium  Notione  et  Potestate. 

De  Parochis  et  iis  qui  in  lure  hisce  aequi- 
parantur. 

De  Paroeciali  Vicario  Cooperatore. 
Canones  514,  523,  600  De  Administratione  Sacramentormn  Re- 

ligiosis  Aegrotis  et  Moribund  is. 
Canones  518,  519,  528  De  Confessariis  Religiosorum. 

Canones  520-527  De  Confessariis  Religiosarum. 

Canon  530  De  Conscientiae  Manifestatione. 

Canones  566, 675, 891  De  Deputatione  Sacerdotum  a  Confes- 

sionibus  in  tarn  Virorum  quam  Mu- 
lierum  Novitiatibus  et  Piis  Associa- 
tionibus. 

Canon  595  De  Obligationibus  Superiorum  quoad 

vitam  spiritualem  suorum  subiectorum. 
Canones  808,  857,  858  De  Ieiunio  Naturali. 


Canones  21-23 
Canones  25-30 
Canones  36-37 
Canones  80-86 
Canones  87-91 
Canones  92-95 
Canones  96-97 
Canon  338 
Canon  339 

Canones  350-352 

Canon  451 

Canon  476 


Canones  837-840 
Canones  875-876 


Canon 

Canon 


882 

883 


Canones  1043,  1044 


Canones  1121-1123 

Canones  1250-1254 
Canones  1756-1758 
Canones  1970-1973 

Oanones  2195-2198 


De  Transmissione  Stipendiorum. 

De  Iurisdictione  ad  Confessiones  Relig¬ 
iosorum  et  Religiosarum  accipiendas. 

De  Absolutione  in  Periculo  Mortis. 

De  Iurisdictione  Sacerdotis  Iter  Mariti- 
mum  Arripientis. 

De  Potestate  Dispensandi  in  Periculo 
Mortis  supra  Impedimenta  Matri- 
monialia. 

De  Interpellationibus  faciendis  in  Privi- 
legio  Paulino. 

De  Lege  Ieiunii  et  Abstinentiae. 

De  iis,  qui  Testes  esse  possunt. 

De  lure  Accusandi  Matrimonium  et  Pos- 
tulandi  Dispensationem  super  Rato. 

De  Natura  et  Divisione  Delicti. 


[  264  ] 


Theses 


265 


XXXIV. 

Canones 

2201-2206 

XXXV. 

Canon 

2229 

XXXVI. 

XXXVII. 

Canones 

Canon 

2236-2240 

2254 

XXXVIII. 

Canon 

2290 

XXXIX. 

Canon 

2414 

De  Causis  excusantibus  vel  minuentibus 
Imputabilitatem  Delicti. 

De  iis,  quae  a  Poenis  latae  sententiae 
excusant. 

De  Remissione  Poenarum. 

De  Absolutione  Censurarum  reservatarum 
in  Casibus  urgentioribus. 

De  Confessarii  Potestate  suspendendi  Ob- 
servantiam  Poenae  Vindicativae  latae 
sententiae. 

De  Punitione  Superiorissae  agentis  con¬ 
tra  Praescriptum  can.  521,  par.  3, 
522,  523. 


ROMAN  LAW 


A.  Justinian  Law 


XL. 
XLI. 
XLII. 
XLIII. 
XLIV. 
XLV. 
XL  VI. 
XLVIL 

XLVIII. 

XLIX. 

L. 


Enslavement. 

Manumission  from  Slavery. 

Origin,  Duties  and  Rights  of  Colonus. 

Origin,  Effects  and  Loss  of  Citizenship. 

The  Juridical  Concept  of  the  Roman  Family. 

Patria  Potestas. 

Origin  and  Cessation  of  Cura. 

Guarantees  of  Tutela  and  Cura. 

B.  The  Institutes  of  Gaius 
Forms  of  Marriage  in  Classical  Law. 

The  Juridical  Meaning  of  Manus. 

Tutela  and  Cura  of  the  Classical  Period  in  Roman  Law. 


INTERNATIONAL  LAW 

LI.  The  Meaning  and  Character  of  International  Law. 

LII.  Sources  and  Fundamental  Principles  of  International  Law. 
LIII.  General  Rights  and  Obligations  of  States. 

LIV.  Immunity. 

LV.  Extradition. 

LVI.  Consular  Agents. 

LVII.  The  Monroe  Doctrine. 

LVIII.  The  Drago  Doctrine. 

LIX.  Jurisdiction  over  Vessels. 

LX.  Piracy. 

Vidit  Facultas: 

Philippus  Bernardini,  S.T.D.,  J.U.D.,  Decanus. 

Ludovicus  H.  Motry,  S.T.D.,  J.C.D.,  a  Secretis. 

Valentinus  T.  Schaaf,  O.F.M.,  S.T.B.,  J.C.D. 

Franciscus  Lardone,  S.T.D.,  J.U.D. 

Manoel  De  Oliviera  Lima,  L.H.B. 

Vidit  Rector  Universitatis : 

+THOMAS  J,  SHAHAN,  S.T.D.,  J.U.L.,  LL.  D. 


VITA 

Robert  Emmet  McCormick  was  born  on  March  29,  1901,  at 
Kingston,  New  York.  His  primary  education  was  received  in 
Public  School  No.  4  of  that  city  and  St.  Columba’s  Parochial 
School,  New  York  City.  Having  completed  the  courses  at  St. 
Francis  Xavier’s  High  School  (1917)  and  Cathedral  College 
(1919)  he  entered  St.  Joseph’s  Seminary  at  Dunwoodie,  N.  Y., 
in  September  of  that  year.  Ordained  to  the  priesthood,  on 
September  20,  1924,  by  His  Eminence  P.  Cardinal  Hayes,  he 
registered  in  the  School  of  Canon  Law  of  the  Catholic  University 
of  America,  at  Washington.  He  takes  this  opportunity  to  ex¬ 
press  his  gratitude  for  the  kind  assistance  he  has  received,  not 
only  from  the  Faculty  of  Canon  Law,  but  also  from  the  Rev¬ 
erend  Joseph  McCarthy,  of  St.  Joseph’s  Seminary,  and  the  as¬ 
sistant  librarian  of  the  University. 


[  266  ] 


Date  Due 


175745 


BOSTON  COLLEGE 


3  9031 


324646  7 


/ 


m 


? 


BOSTON  COLLEGE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  HEIGHTS 

CHESTNUT  HILL,  MASS. 

Books  may  be  kept  for  two  weeks  and  may  be 
renewed  for  the  same  period,  unless  reserved. 

Two  cents  a  day  is  charged  for  each  book  kept 
overtime. 

If  you  cannot  find  what  you  want,  ask  the 
Librarian  who  will  be  glad  to  help  you. 

The  borrower  is  responsible  for  books  drawn 
on  his  card  and  for  all  fines  accruing  on  the 


same. 


4 r£ .nP  .  & 

i .>•  y  •  7  «»/.,■»•.  .'< d-i’ 


•  >/ / 


:-W<*  'V  >  i {'■•  &£  ''?& -wfflvfflm ' . 


>■/  r-  •  H*\  *  (/„  {  ^  j  .  .  *  •  Klpfit  /  rt*  vji  lr  A.  J  ^  /  /j'  *F%  A  ,  ^  'i*  „?*  •  a'.'wjiJ 

.:  fe:// ;'!»:•'■•  /  >i  VvVW#v£t  ■•/* !yvVvXJ'r‘^v35il83 


**>,  ,.■  '•»  ■  n«f  •  WmSWIs 

.  <  ’  v."  fyi  ;  •  i  r^A'i  y' 


'■?&?’.■  .  .*:  /  'itv>  '$[...>  V/4  I 


